Why No One is Talking About an "Alice in Wonderland" Sequel

Incoming news from the film sequel front. "Clash of the Titans 2" is getting fast-tracked into production, with recent announcements coming from Warner Brothers about new writers being attached to the project. Sony is getting directors onboard for a "Ghost Rider" sequel, and in the wake of the big opening weekend "The Karate Kid" had at the box office, we'll be getting a second installment. Looking over the hits of the past few months, it seems like everything that made money is getting a sequel. There will be follow-up films to "Avatar," "How to Train Your Dragon," "Sherlock Holmes," and even one for "Valentine's Day," which will follow many of the same characters around a year later in the tentatively titled "New Year's Eve." A second "Iron Man" sequel has already been a certainty since the first film, though it will have to wait until after "The Avengers," a sort of super-sequel to at least three different Marvel superhero titles.

However, there are a few 2010 hits that will not be getting sequels any time soon. Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island" had a tightly self-contained story with no room for expansion, and bears all the earmarks of a prestige picture that was meant to be Oscar fodder. "Shrek Forever After" was marketed as being the last of the series, and its box office earnings, though nothing to sneeze at, would indicate that the public's interest in the Dreamworks franchise is waning fast. But then we come to what would seem like an obvious candidate for a sequel, the surprise Disney hit "Alice in Wonderland." With a stunning worldwide box office take of over a billion dollars and a narrative that is open to continuation, the conventional wisdom would be that Disney should waste no effort to either convince director Tim Burton to come back for a sequel or rustle up a suitable replacement for him. In my review of the film a few months ago, I assumed an "Alice Through the Looking Glass" was an near-absolute certainty, though it might take some time and a lot of money to tempt Burton and Johnny Depp back for another round. They might have more artistic cachet than most these days, but neither are above sequels.

But by all indications, Disney has no immediate plans for another "Alice in Wonderland" film. According to Jim Hill, Disney is after Burton to helm a new "Maleficent" project, and Johnny Depp is not being pursued for anything but more "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies. Disney's biggest interest in "Alice" at the moment is figuring out how to merchandise it and incorporate some elements of the film into its theme parks. There are plenty of theories as to the reasoning behind this surprising show of restraint from the Mouse House, and I'm a great believer in idle speculation, so here's a quick rundown of several possible reasons why no one at the studio is jumping on a sequel to what is already the fifth highest grossing film at the worldwide box office ever:

Caught Unprepared - "Prince of Persia" was supposed to be Disney's big new action franchise, stepping up to take the place of "Pirates of the Caribbean." "Alice in Wonderland" was only supposed to be a flash in the pan, drawing in a niche audience before quickly disappearing from movie theaters. But both films performed against expectations, leaving Disney scrambling. The studio was bracing for "Alice" to be a costly disappointment, to the extent that Disney sparked a fight with its exhibitors by trying to rush the film out to DVD to recoup projected losses. When "Alice" turned out to be a monster hit, Disney had none of the usual deals and options in place to secure the creative talent for future installments, or any release dates staked out on the calendar. Now, faced with a steep hike in costs for any sequels as a result, the math may not add up for Disney to return to "Wonderland." But I doubt simple sticker shock is the culprit, since the profits have been so staggering, so maybe it's -

Regime Change - We still don't know why Disney studio chief Dick Cook was fired back in September, but "Alice in Wonderland" and most of the current slate of Disney films were projects that originated during his chairmanship. The gossip is that the studio is trying to move in a new direction. There have been signs over the past few months that Disney is trying to downplay its traditional family-friendly image, just enough to attract that elusive audience of young male viewers. I could spend several column inches ranting about the idiocy of this approach, but suffice it to say that Disney wants to dissociate its image from anything that looks too emphatically feminine. Hence the acquisition of the back catalogue of Marvel Comics properties, and recent decisions like "Rapunzel Unbraided" becoming the more boy-friendly "Tangled." "Alice in Wonderland" put Alice in a suit of armor and sent her out to do battle with the Jabberwocky, but this may still be too unconscionably girly for Disney executives under the new chairman, Rich Ross. On the other hand, "Alice" certainly wasn't only loved by female audience members, so it could be -

Sequel Shunning as Business Strategy - As the Daily Vulture noted yesterday, the recent trend of tanking sequels and reboots is forcing the studios to rethink putting so much of their efforts into big franchise pictures. Some are even considering the unthinkable: original material. In Disney's case, I suspect there's a growing disillusionment with franchises in general. The "Pirates" sequel made them millions, but also cost a bundle to produce. They gave up the "Narnia" series to FOX after "Prince Caspian" underperformed. There have been several new projects announced to cater to the same audience as "Alice in Wonderland," like the aforementioned "Maleficent" movie, and a prequel to "The Wizard of Oz" with Sam Raimi, but the magic word - franchise - has been noticeably absent lately. But Disney still has plenty of sequels coming down the pipeline, such as the fourth "Pirates" movie, a second "Enchanted," and a couple of PIXAR follow-ups, and there's been talk of turning the upcoming "Tron: Legacy" into a trilogy, so I doubt they're averse to the idea of an "Alice" sequel. My best guess is that the reason we're not getting one anytime soon has everything to do with -

Tim Burton - There aren't many major filmmakers who have such a unique, identifiable style, that they can be brand names in and of themselves. In the age of CGI-heavy 3D spectaculars, Disney has benefited from cozying up to the striking, surreal whimsy of Tim Burton, who has mellowed over the years and now regularly turns out child-friendly work like "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "Alice in Wonderland." "The Nightmare Before Christmas," panned at the time of release for being too dark and strange, has turned into a perennial moneymaker for Disney, which has re-released it multiple times in theaters and generated countless items of Halloweentown merchandise. They have every reason to want to keep Tim Burton happy, so they aren't about to apply too much pressure for a sequel or risk alienating him by going to someone else to helm a new "Alice" movie. Frankly, I doubt that there is another director out there who could take over for Burton, as the visuals of "Alice in Wonderland" were the major selling point of the film. And Johnny Depp, Burton's long time collaborator, probably wouldn't reprise his Mad Hatter role without him either.

So right now, the fate of any future "Alice" sequel rests with its director. If Tim Burton wants to make another one, then I'm sure Disney would be thrilled. If he wants to make something else, and if it's reasonably family friendly, I doubt Disney will have any complaints. If I were in their shoes, I'd pick Tim Burton over "Alice" too. After all, Burton's career has outlasted multiple franchises and multiple studios, and he shows no signs of slowing down. If Disney plays their cards right, they'll get something better than a franchise - they'll get a consistent, creative, genuinely interesting artist in their corner.

And Disney's always had a pretty good history with those types.