Do you think Tim Burton ever imagined his adaptation of Alice in Wonderland would have become such a behemoth? Well, it’s certainly become one: The director’s seventh collaboration with Johnny Depp is officially the most successful film of Burton’s career — and the tenth highest-grossing film of all time. As of this morning, Disney’s Alice in Wonderland reached $928.9 million worldwide, surpassing The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which, back in 2002, topped out at $925.3 million. Of course, that was a whole eight years ago and the second film in Peter Jackson’s trilogy didn’t have the benefit of 3-D to give it that extra jolt at the box office. Still, it’s quite a feat for Burton and Alice. One that Burton will have a hard time topping, no doubt.
May 4
2010
03:11 PM ET
'Alice in Wonderland' lands in top ten films of all time; bumps 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers'
- Comments 80
- Add comment
Latest News
- 'Game of Thrones' season 2: New photos!
- 'True Blood' alum to guest on 'Grimm'
- George Lucas talks 'Menace' 3-D
- Miley Cyrus exits 'Hotel Transylvania'
- 'Vampire Diaries': Inside EW's photo shoot
- 'Idol': Fox assures fans Symone Black OK
- 'Idol': Symone Black falls off stage: Clip
- 'House' will end after this season
Most Commented
Top 5 Most Read
- Fox’s ‘House’ will end this season
- This Week’s Cover: ‘The Vampire Diaries’ stars talk about the red-hot Damon-Elena-Stefan triangle
- Watch ‘American Idol’ contestant Symone Black fall off the stage — VIDEO
- Bill O’Reilly defends Ellen DeGeneres in One Million Moms, J.C. Penney controversy
- 'Vampire Diaries': Exclusive pics!
That’s weird. I remember it doing well, but not that well. Did it do better in the global box office than the US numbers would have indicated? I remember thinking it was just ok, and that seemed to be the view of most. Usually movies have to have a very positive audience response to get numbers that good. It’s a testament to the power of pricier 3D and IMAX screens.
When I say “just OK” I mean the quality of the movie, not the grosses.
I like how hard you’re remembering for a two month old movie
LOL!
When you see a movie as blitzed outta yer gorge as Ryan K does, it only makes sense! Oh, Ryan K…
Amen to that Krippendorf. Only way to see that flick. Good job Ryan K!
Thanks guys!
“It’s a testament to the power of pricier 3D and IMAX screens.”
You’ve got that right. I don’t know about anyone else, but in the theatre close to where I live, this movie was ONLY playing in 3D. As a result, anyone who wanted to see it at all had to pony up for the extra dimension whether they wanted it or not.
Yes, the longevity for such a tepidly reviewed movie is pretty impressive, but you can really thank 3D.
I feel the same way as you, Ryan. But hopefully, people will grow tired of the 3D/IMAX craze when the quality of the movies go further down.
I’m with you all in thinking the “Alice” was underwhelming. Tim Burton movies are a girl’s version of “Transformers” – massively popular, uninspired CGI-fests. The old Disney cartoon is much higher quality.
Mac, you can’t have seen that many Tim Burton movies. Try Ed Wood! Or Edward Scissorhands…
What the heck are you talking about? This is his first “CGI fest.” Chocolate Factory was mostly real sets. His other films were all really good to kind of great. Stop posting here.
@Kiki – Or Sweeney Todd
Or Sleepy Hollow. We could go on-n-on.
That’s what I was thinking, but apparently it’s grossed over 329 mil in the US and 591 mil internationally. Box office mojo says it’s current total is around 920 mil and it’s ranked number 12 of all time. So, I guess they haven’t updated their site or something.
I agree about the OP’s statement about the power of higher priced 3D movies. I don’t think it’s really fair to lump these new 3D movies in with all the other movies when considering box office total. There should be a seperate category for 3D movies when tracking box office because they have a big advantage.
Rather than box office gross, it would be better if we got reports on ticket sales. Remember, Gone With the Wind is still the champ in that category, and that comes from a movie long before the inception of metroplexes. Count the butts in the seats, not the bucks in the wallets.
What’s important is how much money it made regardless of the circumstances, O.k. 3D prices are higher but there’s always factors that can affect grosses such as way back when gone with the wind was played in theaters, there was only one or two movies per theater and movies were played for a much longer time.
Avatar was just okay and look what it did. Same with Alice it’s just okay, not Depp’s best certainly not his worst, same for Burton. I find that movies tend to do better overseas than domestically, probably because overseas is a lot of countries.
wow i had no idea that it was doing that well!! congrats to the awesome movie!!!
Wow, I don’t believe it either. I’m very surprise it kept the momentum going. Saw it in the unnessary 3D, thought it was only “ok” as well.
I’m a huge Tim Burton fan and thought he would be a natural fit for the zany world of Alice…I found the movie flat, surprise-free, non-humorous, and boring. Oh well, we’ll always have Beetlejuice.
They need to stop going by gross revenue and go by number of seats sold. Movie ticket prices have at least tripled in my lifetime. That means a movie in the ’70s would have to sell at least 3 seats to equal the money for just 1 seat today. Even the time between LOTR 2 and Alice prices have gone up significantly. Pretty soon you will start seeing average movies gross more money then blockbusters of years gone past.
Also the price of making a movie is gone way up. Original “Star Wars” movie cost only 13 mil! I don’t think there are a lot of major company movies out there that cost under 20 mil, if any. Nowadays even most rom-com’s cost 20-25 mil at least. I’m not sure about it, but it’s possible that gross/cost ratio is worse than it was for example 30 years ago. Sequels or remakes are good indicators about that, for example “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is highest crossing Indy movie ever (at least at cinemas), but considering its budget was 185 mil and it grossed 317 mil , the gross/cost ratio is way worse than any other Indy movie. “Raiders of the Lost Ark” cost only 18 mil. and made more than 230 mil! For investors “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was actually better deal.
…and by this standard, the “most successful of Burton’s career” remains “Batman” which, according to Boxofficemojo, cost around $35 million and raked in $400 million worldwide.
I would like to see a list that takes inflation into account. I’m sure Gone With The Wind would still be up there.
Gone With the wind is inaccurate because it includes its multiple re-releases pre-VHS release.
You can see inflation adjusted lists at
the-numbers.com/movies/records/#inflation_adjusted
Where is this information from?
Boxofficemojo and all the other movie sites say it isn’t close to cracking the top ten.
Did you look at the Worldwide All-time chart on Boxofficemojo? They have it listed at #12 there; I would guess their figures are current as of Sunday night, and over the past day and a half it made the eight million it needed to crack the list.
Box Office Mojo now says Alice in Wonderland has passed LOTR and the last two Harry Potter films. It’s currently ranked number 8 of all time.
Alice is the only film I have seen in the new 3D, and the extra dimension did not serve the movie at all. It was distracting. I wish I would have saved my money for 2D. Unless the film is intended for 3D from concept, don’t bother with post-production editing. Just another reason to count ticket sales, not dollars.
you really need to see avatar
3D did Avatar no favors. After seeing it, I woulda been just as satisfied with 2D. Unless you are a fan of grenade pins and paperweights floating about.
The 3D buzz will wear off. Novelty’s carried it this far.
Doubtful. It works in the studios’ advantage and it also cuts down on pirating.
I saw this in 2D and will all films… so it’s not just that.
You are all missing the point. 3D didn’t sell this film, the Depp factor sold it, particularly in another pairing with Burton and in the global market where he is king – just look at the receipts from Japan. And as tepid or unremarkable as you may have found the film as a whole, no one can call Depp’s Mad Hatter boring. His performance and that of Helena Bonham Carter as well as some of the other lesser characters was worth the price of admission – with or without 3D!
Yes, but the “price of admission” was almost twice as much!
“The Depp Factor”? Other than the “Pirates” franchise, name one film that rode Johnny Depp to box office gold.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
(all figures are worldwide, mind you)
Public Enemies: $214m
Sweeney Todd: $152m
Corpse Bride: $117m
Charlie..Chocolate Factory: $474 m
Finding Neverland: $116m
Chocolat: $152m
Sleepy Hollow: $206m
Donnie Brasco: $124m
Also appeared in Platoon and Nightmare On Elm Street, but I doubt too many people saw those two films *because* of Depp. Most of the films listed above feature Depp as the lead character, and several were released prior to the Pirates franchise; I’d say that suggests some sort of box office clout.
If Alice has indeed cracked the all-time top ten, it is a testament to higher ticket prices, due to both 3-D and inflation, not Johnny Depp or anyone else involved in the making of the film.
Not due to Johnny Depp? I don’t think so!! look at How to train your dragon, is in 3D and has a 98 in rotten tomato and is nowhere remotely near Alice
I would’ve have been happier for this movie if Carol Burnett had been in it.
What? I thought that Alice in Wonderland was one of THE WORST movies that came out this year. It can’t even compare to the original. There was no story line adn the movie was incredibly flat
it might be in the top 10 now. But i don’t see that lasting. It will be gone before you know it.
Personally I liked it the film, but didn’t love it. If they had cut out the stupid dance at the end, and maybe explained some things better, I probably would have rated it higher.
How can people call 3-D and IMAX “fads??” as far as 3-d is concerned its been around for for half a century (jaws 3-d?, Halloween 3-D anyone?) and the technology is finally good enough to be MINDBLOWING. and as far as IMAX goes its the crispest sharpest most colorful medium you can use. These cinimatic devices will not go away but i do see the prices going down as it becomes more common place and all the R&D is paid for
Um, Jaws 3-D and Halloween 3-D were failures, as were almost every other movie made in 3-D. It failed then, and once the novelty has worn off again, it is unlikely to last now either.
There was no Halloween 3-D (although there is talk of the third in the Rob Zombie remake series being shot in 3-D). There was a Friday The 13th 3-D, which did just fine in relation to its cost. Jaws 3-D, while not a blockbuster by any standard, did pretty well in spite of the fact that its a horrible film in any number of dimensions.
Oh, and enjoy waiting for the ticket prices to go down. You’ll be waiting a loooooooong time – movie ticket prices never go down, only up.
Ticket prices? Going down? Where have you been for the last 15 years? I really don’t think that is going to happen at all. Ticket prices will probably go up, because they’ll make 3DHD or some other crap.
There hasn’t been a Halloween movie released in 3-D… yet.
Adjusted for inflation “Alice” isn’t even in the top 100 grossing films, domestically anyway. It would need to make another 30 million to knock “Top Gun” out of slot #100.
Thank-you Mike for pointing this out. The reality of films like Avatar & Alice is that their status as the “best top-grossing” movies of all time are largely due to inflation and 3D pricing. When adjusted for inflation, they are NOT better than Gone With The Wind, Titanic, or Lord of The Rings.
Count me as surprised this movie would knock any LOTR movie off of any list. Visually, the movie was stunning, but the story was dull and predictable.