If Maleficent & Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland stayed true to their animated counterparts?

[MrFanaticGuy34]

Here is a topic, I think everyone needs to know:

 

If both Maleficent & Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland stayed more true and faithful to their animated counterparts......do you think it would have resulted to a much better critical reception & higher box office grosses?

 

This is something I have been wondering for a while.

 

Here's how i mean:

 

We all know these 2 animated classics that we grew up with, right? The 1951 animated adaptation of Alice in Wonderland...and the 1959 animated adaptation of Sleeping Beauty.

 

Imagine this.....way before these Disney-Live Action adaptations would get released in theaters. What if they were different than what they are now?

 

For Alice in Wonderland & Maleficent......there would have been changes to make them more better.

 

2010's Alice in Wonderland's changes:

 

1. Have Alice as a young girl for the rest of the film. (Like in the animated version). Nothing against Mia Wasikowska (who played an older version of Alice)....she did fine and decent. I just wished though, Alice stayed the same age like she did in other adaptations of the story.

 

2. Make it more light-hearted and fun....not too dark and gloomy. The animated version was bright and colorful. It wouldn't hurt to add some charm into it.

 

3. Since Alice in Wonderland has a premise about weirdness and nonsense.....go all the way. That's what the charm of the story is. You don't need to put too much thought into it....otherwise it becomes uneven.

 

4. Also.....you can keep the same characters and same casting. (Yes...even Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter and Helena Bonham Carter as the Queen of Hearts).

 

5. Keep the story as simple and good as possible. Just stay true to the spirit of the book.

 

6. Be more like it's 1951 animated counterpart.

 

That's all for Alice.

 

As for Maleficent......

 

Changes:

 

1. Just simply call it "Sleeping Beauty".

 

2. Keep Aurora as the main protagonist. You could still have Elle Fanning playing her. Just make her more interesting.

 

3. Have the 3 good fairies with more dignity and support like in the animated version. You could still keep Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple & Lesley Manville play them.....just don't mess their character-traits up.

 

4. Keep the story & characters more faithful to the animated version. Especially the king (still played by Sharlto Copley) who should be a caring father instead of a villain. Speaking of which......

 

5. Still keep Maleficent as the great villain. Yeah....you could still have Angelina Jolie playing her. I didn't mind Maleficent being a hero in the version we got now.....since it is very interesting.....but wouldn't it have been better if she remained a full villain?  Oh...and she would be the one who turns into a dragon.....(Again, like the animated version).

 

So that was the changes that I wrote here......that would have made the films much more better.

 

Other Disney-live action adapted films like Cinderella & The Jungle Book didn't need much.....because they're already very well-received Disney-films.

 

Comment down your thought down below of these ideas.

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by MrFanaticGuy34

[chasmmi]

I think Alice would have been a better film and maybe have allowed the sequel to make more money. But the original's gross was inflated by the 3D craze, so it could have been alice poking you with a stick for 2 hours and it would have made a billion.

 

Sleeping beauty would have made less. It is a classic Disney animation, but also outdated to a modern audience. Turning it into a take on wicked made it interesting and thus increased box office. Jolice playing the lead role helped a lot too.

[MrFanaticGuy34]

On ‎2016‎-‎07‎-‎18 at 5:31 AM, chasmmi said:

I think Alice would have been a better film and maybe have allowed the sequel to make more money. But the original's gross was inflated by the 3D craze, so it could have been alice poking you with a stick for 2 hours and it would have made a billion.

 

Sleeping beauty would have made less. It is a classic Disney animation, but also outdated to a modern audience. Turning it into a take on wicked made it interesting and thus increased box office. Jolice playing the lead role helped a lot too.

 

True for Maleficent.

 

As for Alice....yeah. It really would have been a better film....and they would/should have put Alice Through the Looking Glass in March 2012. Exactly 2 years from the first one would have been fine.

Edited July 28, 2016 by MrFanaticGuy34

[MrFanaticGuy34]

It's been 7 months ago since this topic.....and I'm surprised no one else has commented yet.

[Kalo]

I don't remember seeing it, I pretty much agree with @chasmmi on most points. I think if Alice had been truer to the original, it would have had a much better reception, considering the time it may not have made more money though, however through the Looking Glass most certainly would have and it probably would have got made alot faster. I would recast pretty much everyone but Henna Bonham Carter through. the 51' Alice in Wonderland is actually my sister's favorite movie of all time, and he hates the remake.

 

as for Maleficent, I would have like a more traditional stroy better or maybe even one where Maleficent is still the main character but evil. that would probably be to dark for Disney though, I did like some things about both movies but overall they fall so far from what they could have been. 

[dudalb]

God, are people really unaware that Alice in Wonderland was based on a classic novel? Has culturally illiteracy really reached that level?

[chrisman0606]

19 hours ago, dudalb said:

God, are people really unaware that Alice in Wonderland was based on a classic novel? Has culturally illiteracy really reached that level?

Me too.