Why is Tim Burton Still Making Movies?

Seriously, why? I can't think of any good explanation for it. Anyone who's seen the suckfest that is Sweeney Todd:bla bla bla bla bla would know exactly what I am talking about -- and I should note for reference that the statement is not an indictment on musicals; I happen to enjoy them, and movies such as The Sound of Music, The King and I, and West Side Story all happen to be favorites of mine.

But the issue at hand is not Sweeney Todd. That has already been done, and little can be done to amend it. I'd suggest burying copies of the DVD in the middle of the desert, somewhere near wherever the video game for ET was taken, but I have hope that the land could one day be arable, and I don't wish the soil to be inadvertantly polluted. Ejecting them into space may incur the wrath of a normally peaceful group of aliens.

The issue at hand is his remake of Alice in Wonderland. For those of you that don't know, Tim Burton has little success with remakes. His Batman and Batman Returns I think were actually surpassed by Schumacker's later Batman Forever (which was honest about its camp) and never topped the movie based on the TV show from the 60s (Bat-shark repellent spray -- classic). The latest Christopher Nolan series of Batman movies really puts these to shame.

He then remade Planet of the Apes. The original was one of the greatest movies of all time. There will never be another actor like Chuck Heston. And for the record, Mark "Marky-Mark" Wahlberg is no Chuck Heston. So what if the monkeys in the original looked fake, it wasn't about the appearance. The movie was a classic for its script and direction and acting, not makeup. I would go so far as to say the last movie of the series in the 70s (or 80s, no one really knows when they stopped) was better than this pile of diarrhea that Tim Burton made.

Then he re-made Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Frankly the only people I know who claim to remotely like it are die-hard Tim Burton fans. OK, so the book might have been darker than the Gene Wilder film. The Gene Wilder film was made for children, no need to be excessively dark. The Tim Burton film was more so "sanitary" than dark, especially the scenes within the factory itself. And also, i did find the original "adequately dark." The scene in the tunnel with the boat and the end when he almost blows off Charlie are dark enough, not to mention the cold way he deals with every single kid who gets kicked out. Oh, and by the way, trying to turn the main character into an allegory of a man who was 6 when the book was written, why? Frankly, it just dates the movie in the worst of ways, much in the way vague genre movies date themselves. Who cares, the only movie that should even mention the life (not works, that is entirely different, and entirely touchable) of Michael Jackson is his own movie, Moonwalker.

Somewhere along the way he also made The Corpse Bride, which was essentially a re-make of his already made movie -- The Nightmare Before Christmas.

I'm thoroughly convinced he doesn't do casting calls anymore. Just take a look at the cast list for Alice. Every movie since he married Helena Bonham Carter has starred her. Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter? The list goes on to include -- Christopher Lee, Paul Reubens, Alan Rickman, and Deep Roy. For those unfamiliar with the last name, he is the Oompa-Lumpa from Charlie, and also has parts in Big Fish, Sleepy Hollow, The Corpse Bride, and Planet of the Apes.

The reason I'm writing this is because recently (this week I believe) the studio released stills from his upcoming re-make. Notably there was a picture of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. Sufficed to say, if I had not been made aware that this was a picture of Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, I would have selected JOHNNY DEPP FROM ANY OTHER DAMN TIM BURTON MOVIE. Look, I respect, sometimes admire Depp's acting career for the most part, I just don't understand why he signs on to all of his films.

I also understand that filmmakers like to have a signature look. The problem is every single one of his movies seems the same. I didn't mind that when it was just Edward Scissorhands. At the time, it was an innovative movie, with a unique appearance. It's just that almost every one of his movies since then has the same exact neo-gothic look about it. Even Planet of the Apes has a somewhat gothic feel to it, despite being set well in the future.

I've heard the argument that he uses colors well. That's essentially the only argument I've ever heard, and its a bit weak. The only colors he ever really uses are black, white, and red. Maybe sometimes he'll use orange, which is really a light red. This also puts him in the company of I Know Who Killed Me, one of the latest films to star Lohan. Though I am a fan of the film (shocking, I know), one thing I'm not going to tout is its art direction -- for the exact same reason, its solely reliant upon an extremely small set of colors which are set well apart from the others. If you're looking to do something more artistic with it, don't make it so obvious. Use a full spectrum of colors, and perhaps have a group which signifies something.

Tim Burton needs to stop. He's simply adding to the trend of re-making movies and making more and more sequels. To make matters worse, it doesn't even appear that he's going to do a very good job with Alice.

Why can't someone do something creative, such as the screenplay I am currently working upon, about a national dilemma; where it turns out the nazi's aren't gone. They've simply escaped to a secret moon base, and are planning to launch an attack to make up for their prior defeat. The solution: a task force of werewolves, who will, because they are on the moon, be in a permanent state of werewolf. Sadly, if this gets made, I see a Tim Burton re-make ten years immediately afterwards, starring Christopher Lee as a Nazi, Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman as werewolves, and Helena Bonham Carter as the President of the Unites States of America.

--Knuttel