I was under the impression that the Pixie franchise became on of his projects not because he chose to embrace it, but because there were serious issues with the first release (remember those delays?), substantial amounts had already been expended, and the general sentiment was "if anyone can salvage this, it's John." Several years later, it's pretty clear that he has "salvaged" it (and then some), but I don't know if that speaks to his actual interest in the project. I don't know him.
It's true that Lasseter "salvaged" the original Tinkerbell movie. But it's not like he came in at the last minute and tweaked it. He scrapped most of it and basically started over. The accounts I've read say that up to 90% of the first movie and everything since then has come from Lasseter.
In the interviews I've seen with Lasseter, he speaks of the franchise with passion. Of course, he speaks of everything with passion. But he came out and said that most of Pixar's releases have been pretty boy-centric. And he saw Pixie Hollow as a chance to branch out and do something for girls.
I can't separate the PR stuff from Lasseter's real feelings. But he definitely gives the impression of being deeply invested in the franchise. And others name-drop him a lot. At the end of the day, his name is all over the credits and his finger prints are on the franchise. I don't think he's going to let it fail while he has anything to say about it.
People have commented in this thread that Pixies "ruins" a classic character. By that logic, you could say that Burton's Alice "ruins" several classic characters.
As you go on to point out, you can't ruin a good character. If Batman can survive Joel Schumacher, Alice and Tink will survive any "off" interpretation.
(I still have horrible flashbacks to "Batman & Robin". Bat-credit card? Don't leave the cave without it? Reallly?!?)
If I were a betting man, I'd say Alice simply because of Burton's cult-following and Depp's place as one of this generation's top leading men. Regardless of the artistic merits of this particular film, Burton and Depp will be popular for generations to come, and it follows that a movie with some of the greatest box office receipts of any movie that either have produced (or that anyone has produced, for that matter), will also have some staying power.
I don't think it matters much, but I disagree about the staying power of Burton's Alice. (And I haven't seen it either, so that's no slight against the quality of the film.) Burton and Depp have collaborated numerous times and will likely collaborate again. I think their collaboration will be remembered in films like "Edward Scissorhands," "Ed Wood" (a personal favorite) and "Sweeney Todd" moreso than for "Alice".
Yes, the film was a blockbuster. But as I have stated numerous times, I think it would have been more or less a base hit save for timing. "Alice" benefitted greatly from being the only 3-D film in theaters immediately following "Avatar". For a brief period after "Avatar" whetted people's appetite for 3-D, you could make a quick buck on any 3-D movie.
(Hollywood has since squandered that good will and audiences have become more selective. I'm looking at you, "Clash of the Titans".)
That said, even assuming Burton's Alice does have staying power, I don't think it's appropriate for Fantasyland.
For the purposes of this discussion, this is probably the most important point. Burton's "Alice" works at DHS, but not FL. So when discussing FL, the only reason to bring up Burton's "Alice" is the degree to which it has raised awareness of the original Disney version.
I think it's fair to say the Disney version enjoyed a spike in popularity due to the release of Burton's "Alice". Disney attempted to capitalize on it with another DVD released. My understanding is that the release was pretty successful. They also released some very limited merch which I have since seen go on clearance. So I don't think Burton's "Alice" did much for Disney's "Alice"'s popularity in the long term.
The best evidence I have of this (and this may seem odd) is it never being released as a Platinum DVD and no intentions thus far to release it as a Platinum/Diamond Blu-ray.
That is a pretty good indicator of how Disney views "Alice". It's never been one of the crown jewels of the animated library. Disney himself called it a disappointment. And it really was. I think a lot of people forget that because they have fond associations with the theme park attractions and characters. But the movie was never a hit.
Looking back before DVD and Blu-ray releases, "Alice" used to be one of the only Disney features that they would run on TV. It was one of the few films that didn't get a theatrical re-release during Disney's lifetime. It wasn't until the counter culture embtaced "Alice" for it's drug references that the film developed a cult following.
The 1951 film didn't get a theatrical re-release until 1974. Back then, Disney features were re-released on a seven-year cycle. But Alice was viewed as a disappointment at best, so it was not included in this cycle. Ironicly, many of the things people are saying about PH being seen as not good enough for the theater are actually true of Alice from 1951-1974.
The 1974 re-release took full advantage of the psychedelia of the times. (Much like Fantastia.) They played "Alice" in college towns and heavily promoted the drug references even going so far as to tie in the film with the Jefferson Airplane song, "White Rabbit." This approach worked! And the film was re-released again in 1981.
WDWFigment has already covered the fact that "Alice" gets treated as a lesser film when it comes to the video market today. But that has always been true. Following the re-release in 1981, "Alice" became the first and only film Disney released for early video rentals (including Betamax). It was used as cannon fodder to test the market so as not to ruin the viablity of a classic film like "Cinderella" when it came to the theatrical re-release cycle.
That may seem trivial, but these releases are based on sales predictions. Instead, Alice has received the same type of treatment as Fox & the Hound, Aristocrats, Robin Hood, and The Sword in the Stone. To the best of my knowledge, none of the foregoing have a single attraction anywhere. Now, I'm sure Alice in Wonderland's popularity has spiked given the Depp/Burton treatment, but enough for several attractions/an area in a land? I doubt it.
"Alice" is in a weird position. I think it is seen as a grade above the films you mentioned. But I think that is largely due to it being older and having more of a presence in the parks all these years. Also, I think it's availablity on TV and video all these years has made it one of the most accessible Disney films for certain generations.
I think the reason you see people around here embracing "Alice" as strongly as they do is because of the theme park attractions. Most of them grew up with the Tea Cups and the walk-around characters. And most WDW fans are somewhat jealous of the dark ride at DL. All of this creates the illusion to the theme park fan that "Alice" sits side by side with "Cinderella", "The Little Mermaid", or "Toy Story" in the Disney cannon. But this is not reality.
