Just saw "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". The music in the original

was MUCH better, IMO. This was "okay" but overall I think I'll take the original.

The Oompa-Loompa Song rules! And Gene Wilder singing "The Candyman!"

Oompa Loompa Doopity Doo
I have another puzzle for you!

a tender hearted kid could have nightmares.

is such a classic. I don't think a remake could do it justice. Just my humble opinion though.

everyone who saw it as a kid, including me. But for whatever reason, it NEVER gets shown on TV.

THE 2005 VERSION IS NOT A REMAKE

:grr:

It is just a new adaptation that stays truer to the book. Dahl was very public about how much he hated that crap made in 1971 because basically it ruined his book. In fact he hated it so much he wouldn't even allow them to do the sequel.

So please stop calling Burton's music a remake. It's offensive to those of us who love the book so passionately and we finally got to see a movie made that almost stayed true to the book

The candyman did. Interesting that Anthony Newley was responsible for the word/lyrics (not sure which) in the original.
My kids said they liked the new songs better, but when I asked them to sing a bar of one, they couldn't do it.
No catchy tunes in the new one....
And there's no bettering the original Veruka. The original stands supreme.
That said, I like the new movie very much....

had made a film version of one of the sequels, like "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator". As it is, Burton is just reinventing a wheel that never needed to be reinvented.

Burton read the book and made a movie based on the book. The 1971 version, they read the book and then totally warped it around to make a cutsie musical to help Quaker Oats sell their new product line of Wonka Bars (not kidding - that's why it's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory).

Burton was not perfectly true to the book but he was definately closer than what was made in 1971. Please do not call this movie a remake. It was basically the way the movie should have been done in the first place. Roald Dahl hated that 1971 version so much he wouldn't give the rights to the sequel away to the folks who made that movie.

It's obvious to those who have truly read and loved the book will all agree with one thing - 1971 version is shit and the 2005 version was finally our dream come true!

Noticed something interesting. He thought that as each kid met their "demise," and the Oompa-Loompas came out to sing, the song was of a particular decade's genre, and the kid and/or the parent was dressed in that time period. Moreover, their "fatal" flaw can be seen as a criticism of that decade.

Gloop's mother's hairdo (beehive-ish) and dress are 60s. His fatal flaw was, "If it feels good, do it," thus his ignoring danger to get at the chocolate river. The song sounded rather 60s to him (I also pointed out that chocolate stimualtes the same regions of the brain as marijuana, but we both thought I was reaching).

Violet and her mom were dressed in jogging suits that looked rather 70s - the me decade, and that's what Violet cared most about. Her song was a disco number.

Veruca and her dad could easily be put in a movie like, "Trading Places," from the 1980s - the greed is good decade and look like they belong. Her downfall from greed had an 80s song.

Mike Teavee was rather 90s with the spiky hair and violent video game playing, and his flaw was growing up too soon and not taking time to be a kid, and he had a rocking 90s song, I believe.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

TlalocW

from the true original which was Roald Dahl's book.

This was MUCH closer to the actual "original."

I liked them both equally.

...the first version.

The only people who sung in the book were the Oompas. Burton got that one right and we fans of the book appreciate that!