'WONDERLAND' TV Spot. Really?

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 5:55pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/STAGE_TUBE_New_WONDERLAND_TV_Spot_20091205

What the hell is this?

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 5:57pm

And you thought CARRIE's commercial was bizarre and misleading!

Love the synthesizer playing the score too!

Wait, is it 1988 again?

P

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 5:58pm

*Waits for Philly03 to explain*

[Kad]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 5:58pm

As far as I'm concerned, it's par for the course for this.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 5:59pm

I think we will need his explanation on this one because I am lost.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 5:59pm

What a waste of money.

BORING

[philly03]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:04pm

How is this misleading? A similar commercial with a female voice was in there before, very similarly. There's TONS of adjectives in there and I don't like that it's only that one picture, but ... I don't see how this is misleading?

I wish they just kept the vocals in there, preferably Brandi Burkhardt. This is the radio ad that was out a while ago:

http://www.wonderlandthemusical.org/audio/wonderland_radio.mp3

[philly03]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:07pm

Although I do essentially agree - waste of money.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:11pm

Maybe because it's an advertisement for a musical that does not show one moment of actual acting, singing or dancing?!

Also, none of the production itself is shown and barely a note from the score is heard. All it is is (poor) computer processed imagery mixed with soundstage shots and a synthesizer twinkling in the background. Also, we have a Harry Potter voice-over (does this narrator also participate in the stage show? I think not) and a poor man's Tim Burton style direction to confuse the kids further.

No, it's not the Tim Burton movie, just as BONNIE & CLYDE is not the Hilary Duff remake. Oops, wrong vanity project.

THAT's why it's misleading, to start. Feel free to add more reasons!

P

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:14pm

Well the first problem is that ALICE IN WONDERLAND was never the story of a girl learning to follow her heart - so she can't re-learn how to do it by going back.

To quote the Mad Hatter - "Have some more wine." "I haven't had any yet so I can't have more...."

[Basely Tearful]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:21pm

I'm so glad I got this concept recording so I can sell it for mega bucks when this thing flops out of twon.

[philly03]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:26pm

Yeah this project went downhill so fast. Everything seems off - the casting, the costumes (while some are nice), the set even doesn't look that nice, the music, the orchestrations, etc. Is this supposed to flop on purpose?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:30pm

They should have stuck with Lauren Kennedy (though perhaps she's the lucky one). She at least would have looked like a modern day Alice and would have been appealing in the commercials.

[philly03]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:35pm

Michael Bennett, I couldn't agree with you more. It's a point I bring up all the time. She was perfect for the role - looks like a mother of a "10 year old" (who is apparently in her 20s - Julie Brooks) and blonde. Though I thought they wouldn't touch that Alice should be indeed blonde..no matter how good of a dancer they claim Dacal is, I just don't see the point.

And if the show sucked you could have atleast saw Lauren Kennedy...you saw Lauren Kennedy not Dacal in her first major role.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:39pm

Audiences wouldn't know Kennedy anymore than they know Dacal.

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:43pm

Yeah this project went downhill so fast. Everything seems off - the casting, the costumes (while some are nice), the set even doesn't look that nice, the music, the orchestrations, etc. Is this supposed to flop on purpose?

He does have a reputation to keep...

[philly03]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:44pm

Lauren Kennedy is certainly more known in the New York scene than Dacal. Tampa audiences? Sure, most wouldn't know either.

There just seems to be a lack of star quality in the production, which hinders on it. Of course, I've yet to see it, but when I do I'll report back!

[romgitsean]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 6:57pm

It was an awful concept from the start. Alice in Wonderland is so dead. With the new Tim Burton movie, the TV mini-series, and this musical...I don't think we have enough awful sequels to Alice in Wonderland at this point.

Oh well. Closing on the road for the win!

[philly03]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 7:40pm

"It was an awful concept from the start. Alice in Wonderland is so dead. With the new Tim Burton movie, the TV mini-series, and this musical...I don't think we have enough awful sequels to Alice in Wonderland at this point.

Oh well. Closing on the road for the win!"

The concept when I first found out about the project was good. Now it's pretty different.

The original concept from what I picked up from it was easy: Alice, a direct descendent from the family of the Carroll, is struggling to write her follow up book, after having a huge success. Meanwhile, Wonderland is a mess. The White Rabbit kidnaps Chloe, who looks like her mother, in an effort to save Wonderland. The Queen captures Chloe and Alice must return to Wonderland to save her. Along the way, she rescues her marriage and gets her idea for her next book.

The concept from my understanding now is: Alice is upset with her life -- she's married, but on the verge of divorce; her daughter, a 10 year old, finds herself down to Wonderland in an effort to save her mom and dad's marriage. Alice is against the pressures of work, love and family, but somehow finds her way through Wonderland to help save her self, her daughter and her marriage.


I like the first one, a shame that it's so different now. This will go right up there with bad sequels. The only thing that will survive this project are two songs - Once More I Can See (because it is a fantastic song) and Finding Wonderland for obvious, pre-teen YouTube videos.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 7:43pm

The White Rabbit kidnaps Chloe, who looks like her mother, in an effort to save Wonderland. The Queen captures Chloe and Alice must return to Wonderland to save her. Along the way, she rescues her marriage and gets her idea for her next book.

Didn't they do a Peter Pan sequel with that story?

[philly03]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 7:44pm

"The White Rabbit kidnaps Chloe, who looks like her mother, in an effort to save Wonderland. The Queen captures Chloe and Alice must return to Wonderland to save her. Along the way, she rescues her marriage and gets her idea for her next book.

Didn't they do a Peter Pan sequel with that story?"

I actually don't know - although it would make sense why they'd have to change the concept.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 7:50pm

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280030/plotsummary

[philly03]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 7:57pm

Yes it does! Jack Murphy is incredible...between this and Seduction of Sheila Valentine, which is a rip-off of SUNSET BLVD., but for the stage, Jack has great ideas, but they're rip-offs.

But please tell me you wouldn't rather have that concept than the new one. It seems like Alice is in Wonderland the entire thing, which I didn't think was the point of it.

[Q]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 8:04pm

"Alice in Wonderland is so dead."

Which explains all this activity decades after its inception.

If the interpretations don't work, that doesn't reflect on the source.

*thinking of the upcoming Holmes blasphemy*

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/5/09 at 8:05pm

I'd prefer no concept. We don't need a Wonderland musical. Is Wildhorn's goal to destroy every classic story ever told?