# Talk:Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Alice in Wonderland (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C20348226%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322071437/http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/02/kids-choice-awards-2011-nominees-miley-cyrus-justin-bieber-and-selena-gomez-lead.html to http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/02/kids-choice-awards-2011-nominees-miley-cyrus-justin-bieber-and-selena-gomez-lead.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20100303%2FREVIEWS%2F100309990%2F1023
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124105644/http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-pirates-4.html to https://movies.yahoo.com/feature/movie-talk-pirates-4.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.joblo.com/scripts/Alice%20in%20Wonderland.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/buena-vista-records-presents-almost-alice-featuring-other-voices-from-wonderland%2C1117270.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The cast list should be a list but at some point between now and April 2018 someone turned it into an enormous table for no apparent reason. See MOS:FILM, specifically WP:FILMCAST because I think someone has misunderstood "Use tables with care due to their complexity" and failed to understand that guideline is not an encouragement to use tables (except in a few specific circumstances such as foreign language films redubbed), and does not supersede WP:PROSE and that prose is best, lists are okay sometimes, and tables even more complicated than lists and should be used sparingly. 
Would someone please change it back. -- 109.79.184.216 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The changes (and several accidental blanking of the section) seem to have been done by Special:Contributions/71.10.73.140. I don't see any edit summaries to explain the changes, and I'm surprised only the editing errors were reverted and no one thought to advise against the change. -- 109.79.184.216 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you. There is no benefit to sticking the cast in a giant table, either in terms of organization or aesthetic. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.
I've looked at the edit history of Special:Contributions/71.10.73.140 and I'm not sure if he has misunderstood the WP:FILMCAST guidelines or what, but that editor has a pattern of making strange unexplained changes to cast lists, sometimes reverting to very old versions and restoring ancient references to unreliable sources such as IMDB. -- 109.79.70.98 (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Currently this article states "Burton developed the story because he never felt an emotional tie to the original book." and cites a now-dead article as the source. I found this claim to be rather bold, and somewhat humorous as it fits with the narrative that Burton didn't understand the source material he was adapting. However upon checking the archive of the source, I found that it actually seems contradicts the claim in this article:
Tim Burton first read Lewis Carroll’s Alice In Wonderland somewhere between the ages of 8 and 10. “I felt a weird connection to it and life,” he said as he spoke of how the characters in Wonderland “represent aspects of the human psyche.”
The phrase "weird connection" is admittedly vague, but I think it definitely implies an emotional tie, and seeing as the source doesn't make other claims around Burton's emotional tie to the book, I've marked it as failed verification. 
Another possible piece of evidence for this claim from that source is here:
He pointed out that he had never seen a version of the Wonderland stories he had really liked
As "versions" could conceivably include the original novel, however in other sources (like this one), he specifies that he doesn't like previous movie versions, which likely applies to his definition of "versions" in the above quote as well. 
“Seeing other movie versions of it, I never felt an emotional connection to it. It was always a girl wandering around from one crazy character to another, and I never really felt any real emotional connection. So it’s an attempt to really try to give (”Alice in Wonderland”) some framework of emotional grounding that has never been in any version before. So that’s the challenge to me. You know every character’s weird, but it’s to try and give them their specific weirdness so that they’re all different. All his characters indicate some kind of mental weirdness that everybody goes through, but the real attempt was to try and make Alice feel more like a story as opposed to a series of events.”
Since this is somewhat ambiguous, I've only tagged it and opened this talk page in case others disagree. However, I don't think there's sufficient evidence for this claim, and think it should probably be rephrased so that it's closer to the language used in the source it cites. 
Jackaloupe (talk)

I think it is because of the fact that the wonderland franchise doesn’t fit the usual Burton creative style of haunted Forrests and colourful outcasts Kirbopher2004 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Guys.  Please read MOS:FILM.  I quote directly from the guideline: "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly."  That means that you can't invent your own Rotten Tomatoes-style critical consensus.  You have to directly cite a reliable source that analyzed the reviews and came to a conclusion.  If you post your own conclusion, this is synthesis.  It is generally easy to cite a source for the overall critical reception of a studio film.  It's not like other forms of media; most aspects of a studio film are well-documented and analyzed in depth by reliable sources.  I'm also getting tired of correcting misinformation in the lead, and I'm beginning to wonder if maybe it is deliberate.  This film received negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, which is easily verified by clicking on the supplied link.  You see that green "splat" graphic?  That's what Rotten Tomatoes uses to symbolize "rotten" reviews, aka negative. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

What about the overall percentage? Doesn't that matter more than the icons? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
If we were to accept your argument, we would have to show that a film with 59% positive reviews (meaning 59% Tomatometer rating) received "negative" reviews just because its rating was classified as "rotten", which is just inaccurate. Metacritic summarizes the critical response clearly, unlike Tomatometer rating. If you are not going to add any more refs in the style of a review roundup, I suggest reverting to status quo and closing this thread, which is not worth spending time on. (P.S. "When less than 60% of reviews for a movie or TV show are positive, a green splat is displayed to indicate its Rotten status." This does not mean that Rotten is "negative". It is just a status to show that less than 60% of reviews are positive, which is not equal to "negative", and "negative" is not stated by the Rotten Tomatoes. You seem to have created your own synthesis). ภץאคгöร 18:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of this "I didn't hear that".  Saying that "rotten" is not "negative" is stupid, and if you think that, you should be topic banned from film articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Is there something wrong? You seem to be personally offended by this topic and the replies. I get the impression that you are getting aggressive because the sentences I wrote refute your view. There is no point in wasting other editors' time unless you write a reasonable comment that disagrees what I have written above. You should know that accusing other editors of not "hearing" and saying that they should be "banned" because what they said is "stupid" is tantamount to harassing them and is a violation. ภץאคгöร 06:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Once again, I believe the percentage matters more the "fresh" or "rotten" classifications. On RT, it says 51% of critics liked the movie, which means 49% of critics didn't, which should mean it received mixed reviews. Brian K. Tyler (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Brian K. Tyler (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how reliable a source ScreenRant is, but their website clearly states the film got mixed reviews overall from critics and mentions Rotten Tomatoes. Again, not sure if this would count as an accurate source, but I would be happy to find another more reliable one if necessary.  Adamtb24 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)