Perhaps the biggest release this month is "Alice in Wonderland," Tim Burton's sequel (get over it; that's what it is) to the 1951 Disney classic. The movie opened to Burton's biggest-ever opening weekend and it remains popular going into its second week.
You know what that means, right? Sequel! That's how these things work. Movie with established name and franchise potential opens, performs well, gets a follow-up. Only that might not be the case with "Alice." Not as far as star Mia Wasikowska is concerned.
"I think it's left in a really good place and I don't think it really needs [a sequel]," she told MTV's Josh Horowitz on the red carpet at the 2010 Independent Spirit Awards. "I think it's good how it is."
Does Wasikowska's apparent lack of interest in a sequel spell doom for the franchise before its even been picked up for more? Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that Disney will simply re-cast the role. Maybe even take a similar approach that Burton did with his movie, go for someone even older next time around.
Alternatively, there's also the possibility of a prequel. There are a few, brief flashback moments in Burton's movie which recreate scenes from the original "Alice." With reboot fever gripping Hollywood already, perhaps Disney's next move will be to produce a live-action remake of the animated 1951 classic.
Frankly, I'd almost prefer to see a live-action re-telling of Lewis Carroll's story. If nothing else, it would offer the opportunity to make things a little darker. The little bits of footage in Burton's movie definitely captured the oddball absurdity of the original tale; one could only imagine how classic story elements like "The Walrus and the Carpenter" and Alice's trial would look.
What do you think? Should Disney go for a sequel? A prequel? Start and end with Burton's "Alice"?