I watched the new Willie Wonka last night.

It was okay, but Gene Wilder did a much better Wonka than Depp. And I love Depp, but Wilder had it perfected!! Discuss.

:yoiks:

:rofl:

:hi:

:hi:
I felt like I was watching a version of Michael Jackson. It was really similar. Wilder rocked it!! Even if this movie was closer to the book, it doesn't mean Depp did a better job. I had high hopes for him too. :shrug:

:)

:D

;)

Does that make me a bad person?









I love Depp, but Wilder will always be Wonka to me.

The new version's color was amazing, though.

I was also disappointed with the kids. Not nasty enough.

I did like the new Charlie Bucket.

Did you see Finding Neverland? Is Charlie the same kid that was in that?

Veruka Salt (sp?) wasn't nearly nasty enough!! Although Agusta was similar. Wilder will always be Wonka to me too!

I'm in the group of people who HATE the first travesty of a movie based on Roald Dahl's book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". That group contains people who absolutely adore the book and felt that the 1970's version of the movie was a travesty. In that group includes Roald Dahl, who refused to allow a sequel made because he was so upset with the Gene Wilder movie.

Tim Burton stayed pretty much true to what the book is although Depp did come off a little bit creepy. But then again the book was a little bit creepy. I had tears in my eyes when I saw Tim Burton's movie because he really tried to stick with the book as much as possible (I'm not sure why he added in the part about Wonka's dad, which is not from the book. THat was the only major deviation).

I wish people would understand that the Burton book is NOT a remake of the Wilder fiasco.

And Depp did poorly IMO. I love him and he is a fabulous actor, but he had this one ALL wrong. JMHO!

If that were the first time you had seen Depp you
might think he is a little bit strange.
He always becomes the part.
On the other hand, he was so unlikable through the movie
that I could not warm up to him at the finish.

He is a fantastic actor (and a hottie :blush:) but he just didn't do Wonka any justice, but it is hard to follow Gene Wilder.

I didn't warm up to any of the characters in this movie.
I find this Charlie extremely unlikable.
By the end, I didn't care about any of them.

I thought Charlie did well, and grandfather Joe. But it was Depp who disappointed me. I guess I had high hopes for him in this role. :shrug:

I have not, but I never cared for the first movie either.

expect any movie to stay completely true to the book. They never do. And the newer one doesn't stay completely true either. Maybe more so than the older movie did, but it still added some stuff.

Wilder was the better Wonka. You know it's true.

But in the book, Wonka was always annoyed with kids and Depp stuck with that.

I would rather watch Bush Campaign speeches than to suffer through the Wilder movie again

Remember these wonderful songs:
Golden Ticket
Lucky Charlie
Pure Imagination
The Wondrous Boat Ride
The Bubble Machine
The Candy Man

There might be more, I happen to have these songs on my play list.
The soundtrack for The Chocolate Factory has
already been forgotten.

The original Charlie is waaay better.
More innocent, more likable.

I thought Depp was masterful in the part of Wonka.

Sure, the oompas sang in the book, but this was never meant to be a song & dance movie. The people who made the Wilder movie decided that song & dance would make the book more of a family affair type movie. Roald Dahl, the book's author, HATED IT and with good reason.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory was nothing more than a full length movie feature to promote Quaker Oat's new Wonka candies. In fact that's the reason why they changed the movie title from what the book's true title.

I wasn't going to see Depp's movie for a song & dance feature.

And there are plenty of them.

Elfman REALLY dropped the ball on this nasty soundtrack.
It's actually embarrassing.

This is still a movie, after all.

I read the book and I wish they would not have added the father.
It broke the continuity (plus, I hated the made-up character).

:P

I'll say it right up front: I've never read the book. May get around to it. But I think the Dahl purists are off base in their criticisms of the first movie. If the primary beef is that it strays too far from the book, that doesn't take anything away from the movie. I think the newer version is weaker and I'll get to that below.

The main difference in the two movies was the portrayal of Wonka and the dad stuff. And the main differences between those portrayals is that Gene Wilder's Wonka wasn't a sexless, broken, overgrown boy. Maybe a little broken, but not without some warmth. Depp's Wonka was better at showing Wonka's frailties and poor social skills. Undoubtedly in a state of arrested development.

My biggest problem with the newer version is that the new group of children, except for Charlie, were basically carbon copies of the batch from the first crew, personality-wise, and they just didn't stand out as distinct personalities from the old crew and from each other. When we were watching the TV interview with Violet, Mach II, she could just as easily been Veruca. By having more of the new kids as mean-spirited as Veruca in addition to their other personality traits, they all seemed a lot more alike.

And you know what? I did like the songs in the first movie. So .. nyah!

What if I took the Harry Potter books and made a movie where I distorted the storyline, made the main character one of the teachers at the school instead of Harry Potter and then added musical numbers. Harry Potter fans around the world would be calling for my head.

As for creating a distinction with the children from the first movie to the next - THAT'S WHAT WAS IN THE DAMN BOOK!! Why would Burton try to create new a different children. Do you know the people who wrote the script for Burton's movie never even saw the Wilder movie. They weren't trying to do a remake but instead a newer adaption of the movie that was based on the book. I thought the new movie did a better job of fleshing out the kids and yes, even updating 2 of the children to more modern times. This time around Violet was more of a "Type A" personality with a pushy mom who tried to be the champion of everything and Mike TeeVee moved on to Video games and other "TV" type entertainments.

The thing you Wilder fans have to recognize is that Burton didn't give a shit about the Wilder movie and instead wanted to present a version that the book fans like myself could call our own. The only comparision that the Book fans make with the Wilder movie is at least it wasn't the Wilder movie and it was more true to the book.

In what way was the storyline in the first movie distorted?

What main character in the first movie was not a main character in the book?

My trouble with the kids wasn't just that they weren't distinct from the first movie, but that they were also less distinct from each other.

Aside from the musical aspect, just how different from the book was the first movie?

The fact that they made the entire movie musical (and not the Oompas who did sing eerie songs after the kids got it).

Sometimes it was more of what Burton added that made me appreciate it. The Buckets were dirt poor which came through moreso in the Burton movie. And I loved how BUrton had all the grandparents in the same bed - that was in the book. In fact the entire first section of how Charlie got the golden ticket almost seemed to be lifted directly from the book. From what I remember about the WIlder movie, Charlie did a song and dance with the Candy shop owner who sang a song I recall that Sammy Davis Jr would sing all the time.

And the squirrel scene in Burton's movie was amazing, the one thing I remember watching the Burton movie was "MY god this is the Dahl book" because even as the bratty kids got their comuppence it was directly from the book. The only thing that disappointed me about the BUrton movie was why did they have to bring Willy Wonka's father into the movie since it was never mentioned in the book.

The best I can say about the Burton movie is when I watched it, it was like seeing Roald Dahl's words come to life. The squirrels, the history of the Oompas, the Indian Prince & his chocolate castle even watching Charlie getting the magical ticket - it was just like I was 8 years old reading the book and watching those words come to life. I never got that with the Wilder movie. The moment Charlie was doing a soft-shoe with the candy store operator I knew I wasn't going to see an adaption of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" but one of those "Based on" movies where it takes its story from the book but warps it to fit the market they are trying to sell

and they were depicted as really poor. In place of the squirrels, though, were the geese who laid golden eggs. It didn't mention the chocolate castle in the first movie though. But every movie based on a book is different. The father and all that hoopla (that added nothing to the story) was added in this movie. What is the difference?

We are from two different worlds and you'll find that there are people who are loyal to the Wilder movie and those of us who were loyal to the book. Charlie & the Chocolate factory (Along with the Great Glass Elevator) was the Harry Potter of our times. I was only about 12 years old when I finally saw the Wilder movie and I was so disappointed. Mind you, I had probably read both Dahl books about 100 times (not exaggerating there either).

I stand proud because I know that the Dahl family is with us in our disappointment in the Wilder movie. I'm sure Roald would have some issue with the Burton movie, but I've read where the family was overall happy with what Burton had put out.

But to each his own! :)

It may depend on if you read the book before you see the movie, or after. I do not think a movie based on a book should mutilate the book and then pretend that it is still based on the book. "I, Robot" for example, may take some things from Isaac Asimov, but it has nothing to do with Asimov's collection "I, Robot".

The movie "The Neverending Story" deviates from the book, and the author disavowed it, but I love that movie and I think they improved on the book. Same with "The Wizard of Oz". If somebody did new movies of those and were closer to the book, I would still prefer the original movies. I have not seen the Matthew Broderick "Music Man" although I have seen it three times in amateur theaters (okay, once I saw it from the orchestra pit). I enjoyed it, without comparing the other actors to Robert Preston (except once where the guy did the talking lines in bouncy rap instead of staccato snare drum)

but the movie was fabulous and I don't know if it could have been any better. I am sure a lot of authors don't like the changes that are in the movies, but a lot of time, I see it as improving upon it! :shrug: And sometimes it makes the movies crappy, but there you go. You never know.

loved the wilder movie, and haven't seen the depp movie. frankly, i couldn't care less if they're different, because they're different entities. I loved stephen king's the shining, and loved kubricks movie; yet, they were very different in many respects. If a movie or book entertains me, then they have done their job. You people just need to relax (both sides) and accept entertainment for what it is

The sort of extended goatee thing he had in Pirates would have been a good match for what I envisioned Wonka having in the book, with a bit of trimming and curling.

I enjoyed it, odd as it was. I expected that going in. The lady in the track suit (Blueberry girl's mom) was the lead female alien in Galaxy Quest.

I thought she looked familiar!

American scary!

too cartoonish. I liked the dark side to Wonka, because you knew there had to be one. There had to be something that caused him to act this way.

Plus, I feel that Veruca, Violet and Mike were perfect in their roles. Depp is one of my favorite actors right now, so maybe that's jading my view, but I like Burton's ideas about the book itself better than the original.

There wasn't enough of the wierd-creepy but kinda fascinating vibe that permeated the Dahl book and that Gene Wilder got just right.

My fav original wonka line!

It might be the Red Queen who tells Alice "Open your mouth a little wider when you speak and always say Your Majesty."

:-)

Gene Wilder is a wonderful actor as is Depp. Sometimes you nail it, sometimes you don't. Depp missed it this time!

:hi:

not even sure if I want to. I was never thrilled with the idea of Depp playing the role of Wonka. When talks began and Christopher Walken was mentioned I was stoked!!!! He would have been awesome.

I LOVE the first movie. Wilder was excellent as Wonka and portrayed him as an eccentric. Having read the books, I pegged Wonka as that type of individual. My main gripe about the new film, having seen previews and read reviews, is that they took the eccentricity out of Wonka. He is a freak now and on display. NOT how Dahl intended him IMHO.

Side note, Dahl wrote the screenplay to the original movie. Yes, he was dissatisfied with it in the end b/c of the director and his additions. Originally though, he was happy with it and excited about the production.

IMHO - Imagination was the basis for the first film, Freakish side show was the idea behind the second.

Wilder was perfection in that role. I also have to say I am only a fan of some of Burton's stuff, so that may have something to do with my dislike of Depp playing Wonka. The really white face and bright red lips were freaky to me. I didn't like the voice Depp chose to use. And Wonka came off as really cold. Wilder was able to keep that condescending attitude and remain likable.

Eh.

All the characters seemed so plastic. I couldn't connect to any of them, except maybe the oompa-loompa.

2.5 stars.

liked them (or him since it was just one guy).

Should I rent this for my kids? Ages 5 & 10.

Or is it aimed more at adults?

adults find it amusing too!

and it was beautifully done. Willie Wonka was a Brown-Vision abomination. I'll conced that Gene Wilder was great in a sucky movie. Johnny was great in a fantastic movie.

I though Wilder was wonderful in a wonderful movie and Depp kinda sucked (as much as I hate to say that since I LOVE Depp) in an okay movie!! Oh well, we all have our favorites. I grew up on the other one and am partial to it!!

superior to the adaptation done back then. The book was colorful and crazy and psychedelic and wild. I never thought "Willie Wonka" lived up to what was in my head when I read the book. Did you read the book or see the movie first? It seems like most people I know who read "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" before seeing "Willie Wonka" didn't like the movie. But people who didn't read the book or read it after seeing "Willie Wonka" (and yes, it always bothered me that they changed the name) like the movie.

Ah well, to each his or her own.

For one, they had changed the title...two, Wilder looked nothing like the Willy Wonka of my mind's eye when reading the book...three, the Oompa Loompa's were stupid in the first movie. When we saw this movie, it was exactly as I had imagined it as a child. These two movies cannot and should not be compared. :hi:

movie to be politically correct.

The Oompa Loompas in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", are described as being "Pygmies" which were "imported directly from Africa. They belong to a small tribe of miniature pygmies known as the Oompa Loompas."


Illustrated as:

s. I really hated that movie, and I was a HUGH!!!111!!! Gene Wilder fan. ;)

but we can disagree. :) As a matter of fact, I know I'm getting the Depp version for Christmas from the kids. :bounce: James let it slip. ;)

to have lots of movies. :)

Those wilder people just don't understand

But we're on the same team YEAH!!!!

:woohoo:

Thank you! :)

in 20 years just two days ago.

Ruined the whole reunion for me. Sigh.

(Actually, it didn't).

You preferred _____________?

But she had been through a major hurricane, so I cut her some slack. :-)

Now climb into my Great Glass Elevator and let's blow this pop stand...

:rofl: