More On That Alice Movie We Told You About In March

I think the combined volume of both Alice stories is the greatest book ever written in the English language. Discuss.

Back on March 21st, I tried to decipher Disney's recently registered Alice-centric web domains. Today, Variety released more information on the film - that it will be live action with CG; that Linda Woolverton is scripting; that Joe Roth is producing.

I can see from the domains that they've singled out Through the Looking Glass, not Adventures in Wonderland - something that hasn't been reported. The stories are quite seperate and distinct, and Looking Glass is more seldom told in film or TV - though a late 80's animated version did feature the vocal stylings of Mr. T - allegedly.

Looking Glass is the source of Jabberwocky, The Walrus and the Carpenter and Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It would have featured a wasp in a wig, but Lewis Carroll 'supressed it' and it wasn't published until the late 1970s, as a standalone text - will Woolverton incorporate this episode? Nah, probably not.

I hope they film in Oxford. Seems only right.

Thanks to Project Gutenberg, the entire book - sans wiggy wasp - is available to read online or download. I suggest you do so.

Across The Universe Ruined

Yeah, well done Revolution. Idiots.

Joe Roth has recut Julie Taymor's Across the Universe. Why? Because they're fools, that's why. Now Taymor is making moves to have her name removed from the film, bad press is about to spiral out of control and all of the positive word from advance screenings is revealed as worthless.

What on earth does Roth think he's doing?

If the various amassed hordes of internet film writers deserve to be taken seriously, they'll kick up one mother of a fuss about this, regardless of their feelings about Taymor. Studio recuts need to be battled, and this is as good an arena as any - in fact, better than most, because we're dealing with a genuine artist. let's take this as an exemplar of 'art versus commerce' and show the studio scissormen what we think of such behaviour.

Your comments, please.

[EDIT: The New York Times on this matter]