Comments on: $1 billion tomorrow – Alice in Wonderland?

By: Francisco

Francisco — Thu, 27 May 2010 13:18:42 +0000

In reply to Peter.

yup, regardless if it was great/good/bad – yes, it’s surprising…but pretty impressive category to join $$$$$$$$

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 27 May 2010 13:12:59 +0000

This result is simply hinting at the audiences hunger for 3D Blockbusters sparked by Avatar.

By: daspman

daspman — Thu, 27 May 2010 04:37:52 +0000

In reply to tzaylor. *signed* I think Alice was better than both of the cameron movies in the list (which by the way are his worst)

By: tzaylor

tzaylor — Thu, 27 May 2010 04:26:44 +0000

Heck no this movie is not a billion dollars good. But then again neither is Avatar, Titanic, or Dead Man’s Chest. Batman and Lord of the Rings were a billion dollars good,(although I prefer Fellowship personally).

By: Cheapshot

Cheapshot — Wed, 26 May 2010 23:13:00 +0000

In reply to Rodney.

Wow… I guess a movie doesn’t have to be good or even ok to make a lot of money.

So how do we judge movies now? How little they suk!

By: Rodney

Rodney — Wed, 26 May 2010 19:09:28 +0000

In reply to Mattman.

No, it wasnt the classic animated Disney Alice, which you seem to have an obsession with. And it wasn’t meant to be.

The story does line up well with the novelization, and adapts well to the screen visually.

I liked it an awful lot, as apparently many others did too.

You are free to dislike it if you choose. But it sounds more that you disliked it because it wasnt the Alice you wanted.

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 26 May 2010 18:41:20 +0000

I saw it in 3D, and your right, to me nothing really poped liked Avatar. And its no supprise that it hit that high, especially with the prices of 3D.

By: Mattman

Mattman — Wed, 26 May 2010 18:36:14 +0000

I have a lot of mixed emotions about this film in general. As a lifelong Alice in Wonderland fan, I was very excited to see a new treatment. But what I got was certainly not Alice in Wonderland. As far as it reaching the $1 billion mark, I am quite frankly amazed. I was bored about halfway through, and I’m a huge Alice fan! Can’t imagine what other people got out of it other than the Depp fangirls and Burton followers…just not that great a movie.

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 26 May 2010 17:14:28 +0000

Not a fan of Tim Burton remakes, so i’m surprised it made that much money. Then again yeah the 3D probably gave it that push, that’s why every other movie is using 3D of course.

Pretty surprising.

By: Francisco

Francisco — Wed, 26 May 2010 17:05:25 +0000

In reply to Robb Wo. ditto. Now imagine if Titanic, the LOTRs, & the POTCs had been made for & released during this 3D-crazed times? Thats a lot of $$$$$$$$$...lol

By: jirashimosu

jirashimosu — Wed, 26 May 2010 17:00:10 +0000

In reply to Robb Wo. the irony is that it wasn't shot as a 3D movie at first place. Perhaps the popularity of the book was the main reason for the success of the film (another irony is how loosely related to the book it was)

By: Robb Wo

Robb Wo — Wed, 26 May 2010 16:46:43 +0000

You mention the 3D incentive, but I assume you mean that’s why it drew so many viewers. How about the fact that 3D venues cap on the extra charge per ticket? So does it really compare evenly?(besides Avatar, of course). Our small local theater charges an extra 25% per seat, so the numbers would get pretty staggering, wouldn’t they? And I also don’t think sales = movie quality. I was disappointed by ‘Clash’ and amazed by its box-office numbers – most of which I credit to its hype and anticipation. And I think between the story of Alice in Wonderland, Tim Burton and Disney, there were very few out there who weren’t going to check this out, regardless of what they thought when they left the theater(after they had already paid the admission)