Tim Burton: Burying the rabbit hole?

I have a few beefs with the new "Alice in Wonderland" movie. I know, I haven't even seen it yet, but my beefs are fully realized on reasons of principle. Regardless of whether or not I enjoy the film simply for what it is, my arguments remain thus:

1. As a Disney production depicted as a sequel to the 1951 animated feature, it doesn't seem right to change the demeanors of any of the returning characters. One of the most emotionally rattling aspects of the animated original was Alice's difficulties getting anyone in Wonderland to be straight with her, to even regard her at all other than to spew nonsense. Yet, in this sequel, she returns to Wonderland and everyone recognizes her, and even manages to coherently communicate with her. What's changed so much in Wonderland that the Mad Hatter excitedly pronounces, "Alice, you're back"? Remember, this is the same guy who asked the young girl if she'd like some tea, but is too distracted by his own ridiculous goings on to ever let her have a sip.

2. Pajiba was exactly right in this article about breaking up Tim Burton and Johnny Depp (and Helena Bonham Carter for that matter, but of course only as far as movie-making goes; they still make a darling couple). Now, don't get me wrong. I actually believe Depp has marvelous range as an actor, and Burton is among my top five directors. And both those points are exactly why I think their work together is growing tired. When Depp does a Burton film, you can already be pretty certain of what you'll get from him. Furthermore, when Depp does a Burton Disney film, forget it. It's too predictable. An actor with his skills is wasted repeating the same schtick with a different wig. When Burton puts Depp in a film, same thing. I wouldn't change Burton's dark and quirky style for a moment, but what I would do is give him the chance to use it on another, comparable actor. The list of supporting actors in the new "Alice in Wonderland" is one of the draws for me. Alan Rickman, Stephen Fry, Crispin Glover ... now that's interesting.

3. This goes beyond "Alice in Wonderland," but this 3-D bullcrap has already become too much for me. I watched "Avatar" in 3-D, and you know what? It didn't make the movie anymore worth watching than it would have been otherwise, in fact, it may have made it worse. When there's some out-of-focus object floating out of the picture at the edge of the screen, that doesn't enhance the immersion. At least 3-D films aren't exclusively distributed in 3-D, but the fact that everyone and their grandma is suddenly saying, "Hey, you know what would make this movie better? 3-D," we're roaming into negligible territory. While the visual aspect of "Alice" may lend itself to 3-D viewing, it doesn't change the fact that it's contributing to a huge pandering-to-an-imaginary-demographic problem. There, I said it.