Alice in Wonderland

[justcarol67]

Geoff wrote:
> > In other words, the screenplay writer (and presumably other production staff) have felt it necessary to mess around with story line.
> > 
> > Here we go again. (sigh).
> 
> md replied:
> > In other words, the screenwriter crafted a sequel to the original stories
> > set ten years after, therefore not "messing around" with it at all but more
> > likely leaving it intact by not trying to tell it once again.
> > 
> > (sigh)
> 
> Geoff responded:
> Well, in that case, why call it "Alice in  Wonderland" which leads 
> people to believe that it is a remake of the original story?
> 
> (irritated sigh)
>
Carol adds:
I'm with Geoff. When Dorothy returned to Oz in not one but two uncanonical sequels, the producers called the films (one of them made for TV) "Return to Oz." If Alice returns to Wonderland in an equally uncanonical sequel, why not call the film "Return to Wonderland"?

Not that I'd be any more eager to see it with that title, but at least it would prevent misconceptions about what viewers would see when they got there. And thank goodness for online previews so parents can check what the film will be like before taking young children.

Carol, who for some reason keeps typing "Ox" for "Oz"