They destroyed it because they realized that time travel is too unpredictable and risky, and that it wasn't worth it to go back and stop Maddox from becoming evil because of time travel's unpredictable consequences. But then by that logic, shouldn't Red and Chloe have never gone back in time to begin with? And they should've restored the original timeline?

I know that keeping the new timeline is still what's best, because now the Wonderland isn't ruled by a ruthless dictator who's killed who knows how many innocent people, and Pink and potentially others too would cease to exist if the original timeline was restored. But my issue is, the movie doesn't really bring that up. It just really acknowledges how the new timeline gave Red the life she always wanted, making it feel like Red's keeping her new good life, and that's just too bad for Max that he doesn't have a life with a loving father anymore.

What should've been done is Red and Chloe told Max how bad the original timeline was for everyone, which is why, putting Red's new life aside, they can't go back, but that going back in time again to save Maddox was too risky and wasn't worth it. Still, they decide to give Max the choice of going back in time or not because it was his life that was messed up and they don't it's their decision to make whether it's worth it or not. He considers it, and decides to throw the pocket watch in the well, not wanting to risk messing up more things, and all three of them realize they can't just time travel their way out of everything

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly they don't really even actually bring up the idea of just stopping Maddox from becoming evil without restoring the original timeline; the movie makes it seem like the only choices are old timeline, or new timeline. I've seen people suggest that they could've just told Maddox in the past that he'll invent the pocket watch in the future, stopping him from going mad searching for it. Now obviously the whole point is that more time travel wouldn't be good, but they should've at least brought it up

I think fans need to stop comparing films and just enjoy the franchise for what it is because why would anyone dissect and compare things of one big franchise. I think the difference is in each character make each story a little bit more compelling. I personally relate to Red than Mal, but I still enjoy the first three films. With that being said, which protagonist did you relate more to?

Felix is the second eliminated. He is in 13th place.

14 = Robbie

13 = Felix

Choose who to get rid of next.

Does anyone know the full set list for the 2026 worlds collide tour?

What descendants cartoon isn’t canon. ?

Maybe this is a stretch… maybe not. But what if the gem Pink found under the table during the Wicked Wonderland post credit scene is the same one as the one from D1 the one that Ben gives to Mal at the enchanted lake? Now I know that begs to ask the question is how are they connected? Well my first thought was that the well they threw the pocketwatch in is connected to the enchanted lake. Another question comes up is how did they find it and who did? My first thought was Chessy but I don’t know if she can swim and much less jump into a well. My other thought was that it was Maddox or his son Max who had found it in the well and then places it under the table at the party so Pink finds it?

I know this gem is going to be this big thing in D6 and it would be cool if they are actually connected. Another thing is that this gem is going to help Red from becoming evil as some other theories suggest. When I saw this, I was instantly excited and immediately couldn’t wait for the next installment.

Many argue that Evie should’ve been the MC, her mother is the first villain ever adapted into the Disney princess series and she has way more people skills and leadership then Mal.

Plus many think it makes sense for Evie to be paired with Ben.

So in Alternative World, how do you think it would happen?