Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

[Fyxe]

[size=1][color=darkblue]As I'm sure some of you know, Tim Burton is re-making the classic: Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory. And of course, taking the lead role as Willy Wonka, is Johnny Depp.

I was rather suprised seeing the preview. I had never really thought about someone re-making Willy Wonka, but I guess, who better than Tim Burton? This is definatly on my To See list. I expect a lot from this film. I am a big fan of Tim Burton's work, and if this movie turns out anything like his others, I don't think I'll be disappointed.

As for Johnny Depp taking on the role as Willy Wonka.... well, what I've seen already is great. He really does give the part an interesting look... and I am pretty sure he will play the character wonderfully too. Johnny Depp and Tim Burton have never failed to pull together a wonderful movie.

So, who else has heard of the re-make? Are you looking forward to it? And, what's your opinion on the whole idea?[/color][/size]

[James]

[color=#811c3a]It's my most-wanted movie of 2005 (as you can probably tell).

The trailer is wonderful and I'm really pleased that Burton has gone back to the source material (the novel itself) to make this film. The novel is among my favourites and when I was a child, I must have read it dozens of times.

So, based on the look of things so far, I think it will be what I'm hoping for. At least, let's hope so. ~_^

Edit: Actually, I should further clarify by saying that [b]Charlie and the Chocolate Factory[/b] is Tim Burton's adaption of the original novel...so it isn't actually a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.[/color]

[Doukeshi]

[COLOR=DimGray][SIZE=1]I have only one word for the trailer I saw. Creepy. I mean, don't get me wrong I think it looks awesome and I do really want to go see it. There's just something kind of disturbing about Depp's portrayal of Wonka, I don't really know if I see the character that way. Of course we all see written characters in different ways, that's the beauty of imagination and I have no doubt that Burton's imagination will be utalized to the full ^_~.

I stand secure in the knowledge, however, that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp remain a flawless team.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Manic Webb]

I like the idea of Johnny Depp playing Willy Wonka. Even Gene Wilder's portrayal in the old movie was pretty creepy, when you get right down to it. In fact, if those Oompa-Loompas and Wonka himself didn't stop to sing every 2 minutes, that would be one incredibly scary movie. I mean, every kid in that story nearly dies.

So I'm really looking forward to this movie. Tim Burton is really good at what he does, and I have a feeling this will be a movie people of all ages will see. Still, I can already hear the "it's not like the old movie" complaints coming from over the horizon.

[Doukeshi]

[COLOR=DimGray][SIZE=1]You do realise that it probably won't live up to the hype, no matter how good Tim is. I am preparing myself to be disappointed, that way, if it is a great movie I will be doubly please and if it's dire, I won't really be upset.

Now that you mention them though, I can't wait to see those Oompa-Loompas.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Annie]

[size=1][color=darkslategray]Oh my..I remember being in a chat when introduced to the trailer. It was horrifying, and then James discovered the trailer (your banners haunt my dreams, James).

However, I would love to see the movie. From the trailer, I saw my movie fetish..colour. Vivid, rich colour. Not to mention, [i]Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory[/i] is a world classic; and knowing that Tim Burton (my favorite director/producer), is making this movie..it only drives my urge to see it. No matter how frightening the trailer is ^_^[/size][/color]

[JCBaggee]

[color=darkred][size=1][font=verdana]Well, what can I say? This will the [i]the[/i] must see movie. Its going to be fantastic. Johnny Depp is clearly a first choice when casting an eccentric, socially withdrawn billionaire. But can they cast the other kids with such wonderous appeal? All the other roles are given to unknowns, and this film could be the launchpad for several great careers. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

And while this may be off topic, is it just me or is this summer shaping up to be a good one for movies? With "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", "Batman Begins", and "Sin City", it looks like the quirky movies are finally taking over.

--Chris[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Manic Webb']I like the idea of Johnny Depp playing Willy Wonka. Even Gene Wilder's portrayal in the old movie was pretty creepy, when you get right down to it. In fact, if those Oompa-Loompas and Wonka himself didn't stop to sing every 2 minutes, that would be one incredibly scary movie. I mean, every kid in that story nearly dies.[/quote]Yeah, the movie is actually quite creepy. I remember the gondola sequence, with Wonka chanting, the nightmarish images streaming along the walls...I think the only reason people view the film as a "kid's movie" sometimes is because it's so damn colorful and set design so childish ("childish" in the sense that it could have been designed by a child, considering all the fantasy look to it).

I'm pretty interested in Burton/Depp's version, because I really don't think there is anyone in Hollywood today, apart from Burton/Depp, who I'd entrust with this film. Burton has been doing this style of film his entire career, and Depp has pretty much always been his leading man, sans one or two movies. They have the talent, the vision, and the approach that's necessary to create a quality picture, I think.

I really don't think the film will fall victim to its own hype, really. Yes, there are fairly high expectations here, because it's Tim Burton, the guy who gave us Beetlejuice, Batman, Nightmare Before Christmas, Big Fish, etc, but it's Tim Burton, the guy who gave us Beetlejuice, Batman, Nightmare Before Christmas, Big Fish, etc.

[eleanor]

[i]I have only one word for the trailer I saw. Creepy. I mean, don't get me wrong I think it looks awesome and I do really want to go see it. There's just something kind of disturbing about Depp's portrayal of Wonka, I don't really know if I see the character that way. [/i]

[color=darkslateblue] If you're read the book, you must know that Willy Wonka himself is just one very creepy guy. [/color]

[Doukeshi]

[COLOR=DimGray][SIZE=1][QUOTE=maladjusted][i]I have only one word for the trailer I saw. Creepy. I mean, don't get me wrong I think it looks awesome and I do really want to go see it. There's just something kind of disturbing about Depp's portrayal of Wonka, I don't really know if I see the character that way. [/i]

[color=darkslateblue] If you're read the book, you must know that Willy Wonka himself is just one very creepy guy. [/color][/QUOTE]

Maybe I was too young at the time to recognise the fact ^_~. Okay, I shall re-read the book and then contemplate my judgment.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Xander Harris]

I generally find Tim Burton to be a mixed bag. Sometimes brilliant, but many times simply very strange.

I didn't much care for the first Willy Wonka. A bunch of prop/set comedy without any real intelligence to it. Some vaguely catchy songs. And an irritating cast.

Why would I want to watch a remake of this?

[Hevn]

Did you read the posts in this thread? James already said it's not a remake of Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory but an adaptation by Tim Burton of the original novel.

Anyway, I have to admit I was creeped out by the music, lol, and by Johnny Depp. I didn't even recognize it was him until I saw his name on the screen. I trust he made a good. He chooses weird roles, anyways, and by far he's good at it. And I think it was from Mr. Azazel's site that I read that one of his inspirations for the role's Marilyn Manson.

I was attracted by the colours too, can't help it, heh. And who can resist chocolates?

[NorykoAngelcry]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=darkred]Ok, I feel a little better, reading this thread, informing me that it is not a re-make, but it's still going to feel like that when I watch it a little. I tend to look at remakes in a different light anyways, so it's not like it will ruin it. I did originally think that this was going to be a follow up to the original movie, but was upset when I heard it was the same storyline. Hopefully Tim Burton won't dissapoint on this one. Not saying that he is known for ruining things, quite the opposite!

I suppose I will just have to wait and see. This movie was definitely on the list of movies that I have been waiting for. . the trailer, with the odd music and color choices, both frightened, and excited me. [/SIZE][/COLOR]

[GTK]

Personally, I'm hoping singing will be kept to a minimum T_T Though the trailer is amusing (and Depp's ryhme that went something like "chewing gum is really gross, chewing gum I hate the most" was sort of cute)

Depp looks awfully femmy in the Wonka outfit though XD not that I'm complaining... I did a lot of squeeing when I first saw the trailer~

and, like mentioned before, Johnny Depp and Tim Burton have always cranked out great movies ^^ so I'm really looking forward to it. I actually didn't care too much for the original ^^; but I'm not really expecting the new one to be anything like it (though I'm gonna try and hunt down the book so I can at least keep that in mind for the new one)

[Shinmaru]

I guess this is the thread for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? lol

I got back from the movie a couple of hours ago. I wasn't really fond of the trailers that had been popping up on TV lately, for whatever reason, so I was a bit apprehensive going in to the film. However, I ended up liking the film. Johnny Depp did a good job as Willy Wonka, though I don't think that I could compare his performance to Gene Wilder's... they're practically two different characters lol.

On another forum I go to, there were a few people saying that they couldn't hear what the Oompa Loompas were singing. I didn't have any trouble at all hearing the songs, so whatever. I liked the songs a lot. I thought it was pretty neat [spoiler]how they were done in different styles. That made the songs a lot more fun to listen to. I'd have to see Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory again to make sure, but I think I like the Oompa Loompas in this movie better.

The flashbacks to Wonka's past were pretty fun, too. Nothing mind blowing, or anything, but they give a bit of a reason for Wonka's odd behavior other than 'I'm crazy!!!1!11'. Though if I had a choice I might've kept that ambiguous since I think it's more fun to imagine your own reasons for Wonka's demented love of candy. Oh well, I like Christopher Lee, so that was a nice bonus, anyway lol.[/spoiler]

Also, I [i]loved[/i] the little parodies and references sprinkled throughout the movie. [spoiler]Mike Teevee squeaking 'Help me! Help me!' ala The Fly, the Oompa Loompa stabbing down at Mike in the shower like in Psycho, and, of course, the big 2001: A Space Odyssey parody. Oh my god that was the coolest thing ever. I loved it so much. When I first saw the scene in the TV with the apes, I was like, "Oh my god, are those the apes from 2001??" And then the music from the opening of 2001 started playing when Wonka was preparing to teleport the chocolate bar, and I had the biggest grin ever on my face. I was cracking up when the monolith in the opening scenes of 2001 was replaced with a big Wonka bar. Hilarious.[/spoiler] There's probably more stuff that I missed or that I'm just not remembering at the moment.

Don't know if I have many complaints about the film. It wasn't incredible, but it was a damn fun movie. I think that's all you can ask for, really.

[Semjaza]

Yeah, I'd agree it was decent. I found myself less and less enchanted by it as time went on. I find that the general buzz from a movie wears off more quickly with some films than others... this was one of the faster ones. It really seems very disposable to me. The main people I can see being most impressed with this one would be people who hate musicals... not that it doesn't do other things different or well, but that's the main thing for a lot of people.

It's good. It's not great. I don't particularly agree that Wonka has much more depth to his character in this one than the first version. Yes, obviously the movie goes farther into his backstory, but the character himself is so two-dimensional and full of childish, stupid comebacks that it winds up just balancing itself out again.

I liked some of the effects, I liked all the kids and parents to some degree and they did a decent job with almost everything. I was happy with the music myself... it manges to be Elfman-ish without sounding like one of this soundtracks the second the first note is played. He seems out of his rut. The Oopma Loompa songs wound up being a nice range of styles.

[James]

[QUOTE=NorykoAngelcry][size=1][color=darkred]Ok, I feel a little better, reading this thread, informing me that it is not a re-make, but it's still going to feel like that when I watch it a little. I tend to look at remakes in a different light anyways, so it's not like it will ruin it. I did originally think that this was going to be a follow up to the original movie, but was upset when I heard it was the same storyline. Hopefully Tim Burton won't dissapoint on this one. Not saying that he is known for ruining things, quite the opposite!

[/color][/size][/QUOTE]
[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, it's [i]incredibly [/i]important to understand that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. You will find that it's a relatively different film, because it's based on the novel and not on the original film.

I'll be seeing this new film in a couple of weeks, so I'll tell you what I think at that point. But I do think it's important to point out those things, mostly because I'm a huge fan of the novel.

Apparently Dahl wasn't very happy with the original film, largely because it "Disney-ized" his novel. The original film was great, but it wasn't "Wonka". At least, not as intended.

The comparison I'd draw would be one that most could understand. Think of Disney's version of Alice in Wonderland. And then compare that to the original novel. They are both quite different - the Disney version is basically a musical interpretation of the novel and it leaves some massive parts out, while also including its own bits and pieces. It's a fantastic movie (one of my favourite from Disney), but a fan of the novel could hardly call it an accurate representation of the novel itself. If it were, it would have included the Dutchess and her baby - remember how, in the novel, she sings about how it's fine to beat your children when they sneeze? Obviously that wasn't in the Disney film, but that's a part of the original story nonetheless.

The exact same thing was true of Wonka. "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was a corporate gloss-over of the novel. I think it was a good film - and Gene Wilder is always remarkable - but it wasn't as true to the novel as many fans had hoped.

From everything I've seen and read, this new film does seem to more accurately depict the novel. So I'm very happy about that. I can understand that many people will incorrectly compare this movie to the original, or they will view it as a bastardization of the original film. In actuality, the original film is the "odd one out", so to speak. So it should be viewed in that context.

I definitely know how Sara felt, though, when she talked about people seeing Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy without having read the book. Those people (myself included) will simply not fully appreciate it and won't know all of the little references...nor will we know what was missed or left out. I definitely see where she's coming from, having seen the reactions to this film. lol[/font]

[Semjaza]

In a lot of ways I don't really think it matters if this is a direct remake or not. It should be obvious to most people that this has more to do with the book (I think they should have put Dahl's name above it honestly), but that doesn't mean the films shouldn't be compared. They're based on the same source material and Dahl wrote the original's screenplay. I think a lot of what he disliked about it really just stemmed around the fact that it was largely only made so someone could sell a new type of candybar. I know I'd feel disgusted by that too.

They attempt different things and use the source material in separate ways, but being more true to the book doesn't necessarily make a film better. They're going to be compared no matter what. I think they nicely sit next to eachother thanks to the differences, but I can't see anyone not comparing between the two because they have the same characters, same areas and many of the exact same lines because of the book they're based on. Honestly, aside from the new backstory for Wonka (which really adds very little in my opinion) and a few smaller changes to basic things. They're incredibly similar and Burton is obviously strongly influenced by much of the look of the first one.

So, again, I don't really think something being directly based on the book moreso than something else automatically makes it better. I just don't think it's as interesting in many ways, personally. It had nothing really to do with little things it did or didn't take from the book.

[James]

[quote]In a lot of ways I don't really think it matters if this is a direct remake or not. It should be obvious to most people that this has more to do with the book (I think they should have put Dahl's name above it honestly), but that doesn't mean the films shouldn't be compared. They're based on the same source material and Dahl wrote the original's screenplay. I think a lot of what he disliked about it really just stemmed around the fact that it was largely only made so someone could sell a new type of candybar. I know I'd feel disgusted by that too.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think that the question of it being a remake is incredibly important, for two noteable reasons.

First and foremost, if people have seen the original film without having read the book, they're obviously going to expect that this film is a remake. Doing so can really only lead to disappointment, because both films are really trying to emphasize different areas. People who loved the original - without reading the novel - are going to view that as the authentic representation. So the new film could easily be seen as a poor deviation in that sense, when in actual fact, it's less a deviation than the original film.

Secondly and most importantly, Dahl's dislike of the original film had nothing to do with candy bar promotions. Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay to the 1971 film, but the final screenplay was quite different to what he'd written - David Seltzer largely rewrote huge chunks of the thing and basically killed a lot of the original screenplay. He killed off many of the darker elements and included various totally unrelated literary references.

Dahl was upset about this (and rightly so). As a result, he apparently refused to sign over the rights to the second book, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator.

I'm not against comparing the two films, but it must be done when armed with the right information. That's all I'm saying.[/font]

[quote]They attempt different things and use the source material in separate ways, but being more true to the book doesn't necessarily make a film better. They're going to be compared no matter what. I think they nicely sit next to eachother thanks to the differences, but I can't see anyone not comparing between the two because they have the same characters, same areas and many of the exact same lines because of the book they're based on. Honestly, aside from the new backstory for Wonka (which really adds very little in my opinion) and a few smaller changes to basic things. They're incredibly similar and Burton is obviously strongly influenced by much of the look of the first one.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Being true to the book doesn't necessarily make the film better for the lay viewer, that's true. But it [i]is[/i] important if you're looking for the "true" story/experience.

Even the design of the factory and various other visual elements were lifted directly from the novel (including the Art Deco aspects).

I think that the two films are relatively different in their interpretations, but my overriding point is that the 1971 film is really more the deviation. I'm sure that people who haven't read the book simply won't care about that, which is fine. As mentioned, I love the original film for what it is. But there's no doubt that it's absolutely a pretty hollow representation of the original story - and that's an important point if we're discussing the validity of various choices with characters and design.[/font]

[quote]So, again, I don't really think something being directly based on the book moreso than something else automatically makes it better. I just don't think it's as interesting in many ways, personally. It had nothing really to do with little things it did or didn't take from the book.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It doesn't necessarily make it "better", no. But it does make it more authentic, which is important, if only because we [i]are[/i] talking about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, as opposed to some other story. I mean, how relevant the movie is to the novel obviously carries importance.

As I said above, I'm not making any attempt to say that one film is better than the other. That misses my point. I'm trying to explain that when one compares the two films, it's important to do so within the right context - as a fan of the original story, that's important to me, just as it would be important to you if someone had made a film from a novel that you love.

I think my example earlier on pretty much illustrates this anyway. Compare the Disney Alice in Wonderland to the novel. The novel is absolutely the source - it's the authority and everything else springs from it. Disney's version of Alice was gorgeous in and of itself, but it wasn't a terribly accurate representation of the source material. So in discussing Alice, that would be an important factor to consider. That doesn't make the film any less good, that just makes it a different interpretation.[/font]

[Semjaza]

[quote name='James][font=franklin gothic medium']Secondly and most importantly, Dahl's dislike of the original film had nothing to do with candy bar promotions. Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay to the 1971 film, but the final screenplay was quite different to what he'd written - David Seltzer largely rewrote huge chunks of the thing and basically killed a lot of the original screenplay. He killed off many of the darker elements and included various totally unrelated literary references.[/quote]

I'm not understanding how this disuades the idea of it being made for a candy bar. The whole reason the film was pushed and got funding was because of the chocolate promotions they made to encompass it. Regardless of what Dahl originally wrote it was changed largely so it could be accessed by kids well enough so that they'd want to buy the new candy. It's the same concept with making a cartoon to sell action figures from the producer's point of view. All of the changes really directly tie into using it as a vehicle to sell Wonka branded products and as such I don't think it's incorrect to say he was mostly upset about the whole chocolate incident because all of that is involved with it directly.

The difference here is that I'm not one of these people and I'm speaking of my own accord. I've read the book. I liked the original movie. I was interested in this film before even Marilyn Manson was rumored about it, which was a long, long time ago. I don't have any misconceptions and ignorances coming into this. After all of that I still think people who have seen and read all of these things will compare the films.

If people want to discuss how important it is to stay true to the book then whatever... I don't really know how one can even compare how similar they are or aren't without even seeing the film yet unless they sit and read the entire script. I know the films are different from eachother and the novel in various ways (it's not as if either of them use the original idea of the Oompa Loompas fully among many other things), but they're still going to be compared even by people who have read and seen everything because they're directly related to eachother even if it is in a very basic way.

I don't really see what's wrong with saying "I liked this guy as Willy better" or "These kids better" or "this take on that angle better" because they're very similar films even with the differences. They go to the same areas, talk about the same things, show off the same kids... the only major difference is the removal of Slugworth and the addition of a Wonka backstory. This one may be more like the book, but it's certainly not completely like the book and then what...? If someone makes another one of these in thirty years that is even more like the book are we not going to compare it to this new one? It's not like we really know if Dahl would love this version either and all movies are edited around to some extent. Ironically, even with all the editing, I almost feel like the original adaptation is darker as it is... probably largely because Wonka doesn't feel like a moron in it.

Regardless of all that, it really comes down to how enjoyable the film is by itself for me. If people want to read the book then go read the book. Being accurate and being a more enjoyable film are very different things sometimes. For me, this film was largely just far more disposable and forgettable in the long run... maybe because I've read and seen the original "adaptation" before? I have no idea lol. That's my opinion obviously. I've seen many people who prefer it, even without knowing the book. I don't think they're wrong or anything.

As for Alice, I think a lot of the differences came down to time contraints and getting sections in that were most popular. I can't say I really miss the lady with the pig lol.

[James]

[quote]I'm not understanding how this disuades the idea of it being made for a candy bar. The whole reason the film was pushed and got funding was because of the chocolate promotions they made to encompass it. Regardless of what Dahl originally wrote it was changed largely so it could be accessed by kids well enough so that they'd want to buy the new candy. It's the same concept with making a cartoon to sell action figures from the producer's point of view. All of the changes really directly tie into using it as a vehicle to sell Wonka branded products and as such I don't think it's incorrect to say he was mostly upset about the whole chocolate incident because all of that is involved with it directly.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Okay, but we're getting into semantics a little here. The fundamental point is that, regardless of the reasons for the change, Dahl was upset that his script was so severely edited. The core meanings and intentions behind the script were removed.

Also, I don't know what the outside literary references and some of the changes in focus have to do with selling more candy bars as some promotional tool. I view those as being largely irrelevant. Charlie's relationship with Wonka (and Wonka's own character) was changed to a reasonably significant degree...but I don't know how that ties into encouraging kids to buy candy or something like that. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I'm saying that this (as bad as it is) isn't the primary reason why Dahl was upset with the film. He was upset because of the destruction of much of his original script.[/font]

[quote]The difference here is that I'm not one of these people and I'm speaking of my own accord. I've read the book. I liked the original movie. I was interested in this film before even Marilyn Manson was rumored about it, which was a long, long time ago. I don't have any misconceptions and ignorances coming into this. After all of that I still think people who have seen and read all of these things will compare the films.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Okay, that's fine. But my comments were not even directed to you, so I don't know why you feel the need to respond to this point. I'm not sure how this paragraph is relevant to what I've been saying.

You are talking to someone who has been a fan of the novel since childhood and who feels that a movie that more accurately represents the book is a positive thing. I too was excited by the prospect of this film, well before any suggestion of Marilyn Manson came into the picture. So we're both the same there, lol. All I am trying to do in this thread is to clear up any misconceptions that exist, so that the comparisons can be made with some sense of context. I originally quoted Noryko and I was responding to that quote to provide a little perspective to those who may not have the knowledge of this story that I do.[/font]

[quote]If people want to discuss how important it is to stay true to the book then whatever... I don't really know how one can even compare how similar they are or aren't without even seeing the film yet unless they sit and read the entire script. I know the films are different from eachother and the novel in various ways (it's not as if either of them use the original idea of the Oompa Loompas fully among many other things), but they're still going to be compared even by people who have read and seen everything because they're directly related to eachother even if it is in a very basic way. I don't really see what's wrong with saying "I liked this guy as Willy better" or "These kids better" or "this take on that angle better" because they're very similar films even with the differences. This one may be more like the book, but it's not completely like the book and then what...? If someone makes another one of these in thirty years that is even more like the book are we not going to compare it to this new one? It's not like we really know if Dahl would love this version either and all movies are edited around to some extent.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This paragraph seems to ignore what I've already posted, though. I haven't seen the film, which is why I'm not dealing with too many specifics. But I do know enough to be aware that it is closer to the book in a number of key areas than the original film was. For the purpose of the point I'm making here, that's all that really matters; we're dealing in pretty general stuff.

As I said - and will say again - I'm not against comparing these films. It's logical to compare them, of course. What I'm saying is that it should be understood that this new film is not a remake of the 1971 version. By providing a little trivia on the history of these movies and their relationship with the novel, people are going to have a better understanding of where certain references come from and such.

Nor am I saying that people can't say what they prefer. I don't care what version people prefer. lol

I'm simply saying that it would sometimes be inaccurate to say that certain aspects of the original movie were a part of the original story or the original concept. If people understand the history of the films a little more, they're going to have a better frame of reference, that's all.

Again going back to the two versions of Alice, my intention isn't to say that one is better than another. That's up to individuals to decide. My intention is just to point out where one might be closer to the source material than the other and in that vein, to demonstrate which is more accurate. People may not prefer the more accurate version though - and that's entirely up to them. I don't care.[/font]

[quote]Regardless of all that, it really comes down to how enjoyable the film is by itself for me. If people want to read the book then go read the book. Being accurate and being a more enjoyable film are very different things sometimes. For me, this film was largely just far more disposable and forgettable in the long run... maybe because I've read and seen the original "adaptation" before? I have no idea lol. That's my opinion obviously. I've seen many people who prefer it, even without knowing the book. I don't think they're wrong or anything.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Of course. But I want to be very clear so that I am not misinterpreted; I am not saying that anyone is wrong. And I am not saying that accuracy equates to a more enjoyable film. It's very important for me to underscore that. If you go back over my comments, you'll note that I've never made such implications.

For all I know, someone may love the movie and absolutely hate the book. I mean, it happens, I guess. So I'm not here to judge anyone's taste in that sense. But if we are going to discuss this movie and compare the two films, it's important to know what we're comparing - in other words, it's important to understand what this story really is and how the two films approach it differently. People are free to enjoy whatever version they want, whether it's more accurate or not. It doesn't matter.[/font]

[Noodle]

[COLOR=Navy][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana]OMG THIS WAS THE BEST MOVIE EVER!!! My mom and I went to see it the first day it came out and it was awesome! At first, the only reason I wanted to see it was cause of Johnny Depp:love2: See, I didn't really like the first one(The Oompa Loompas scared the **** out of me :bawl: ) and the trailers to it 'Didn't do the movie justice' as my mother says :lecture: , so I wasn't really keen on the idea of a re-make. Then I heard that A)Tim Burton was directing it(I LOVE Tim's films) and B) It was not a re-make of the film, but the book(which was WAY better than the first film) Then I began scouring the web for more, and better trailers, watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory specials on E!, VH1, and TV Guide channel, and soon became obsessed with the movie. So when it came time to see the actual movie, I had my Wonka brand candies(which I found out were actually made by Nestle)and my Wonka Bar plush in tow. I know, sad, but true. The movie itself was great. Johnny Depp was the PERFECT Wonka in my opinion. It was also cool cause Wonka didn't have to sing this time(Gene Wilder singing will be forever imprinted in my feeble young mind)
Some of the best parts of this movie are like when [spoiler] Varuca(or however the hell u spell her name) introduces herself and Wonka says "I always thought Varuca was a kind of wart u get on the bottom of your foot" or the part where it shows Willy as a kid with the full head-gear braces. One of my favorite parts though was when Wonka was in Loompa land (or whatever it's called) How he has the safari gear and starts sniffing random things and then would pretty much throw up in his mouth.Then, he meets the Oompa Loompa cheif and has to eat the crushed up beatles. :sick: :faint: [/spoiler]It was just an awesome movie. I will probably pay to see it another 50 times and pre-order the DVD tonight. :box: It was also a big plus that the Oompa Loompas wern't as freeky as the last movie. :freak: [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Syk3]

I can see that there's already quite a big debate on this movie, and from skimming it, it seems to be dealing with the substance of an opinion based on past experience. I'll tell you right now that this post is coming from someone who read the book quite a few years ago, and loves the original movie. Having said that.. I'd rather not get into the debate, and just want to offer how I thought about it. ^_^

I can't say that I really loved the movie on the whole. I thought it was good; particularly the actors, and as such the acting, was something I enjoyed immensely.. except for Depp. It's just that I thought his performance was pretty strange, and by preference, didn't like it much. He had his moments, but for the most part, it seemed to me to be pretty lame, and at points I almost recognized similar lines from the original movie that seemed to me to be executed rather.. I dunno, mockingly. :/ The [spoiler]background for Wonka's father[/spoiler] seemed to me to not only be unnecessary, but pretty ridiculous and kind of stupid. It certainly didn't add anything to the story, and what it added to his character felt forced.

The Oompa Loompas were another thing that I wasn't really feeling. I didn't like the fact that it was the same guy multiplied as many times as needed, and though that gave it more order, this and other computer affects made it feel less real to me. But I suppose that I say the same thing about a lot of movies these days, so oh well. The songs.. meh. I felt meh about the songs, and while I did like the technology tinge to them, overall they weren't my favorite. In general, I liked the Oompa Loompas and their appearances in the original better than I liked them here. Oh yeah, I feel it's appropriate to mention here that my mom actually dated one of the original Oompa Loompas. o.o; She told my brother and I on our way to see it the Friday it came out.

So yeah, my fondest moments of the movie are from the beginning until right when they enter the factory. XD Needless to say, I didn't care for a lot of the chocolate factory scenes, due in part to Wonka and the Oompa Loompas. If they had combined the beginning of this with the middle and end of the original, I believe it would be perfect, haha. I know a lot of you are about ready to kill me now, so I'll just end with the fact that I thought the movie was worth seeing, but it didn't meet the expectations that I held and I just didn't care for some of it, which I've noted above. I'd give it a 6.9 on a scale of 10, compared to an 8 I may give the original, but those are just quick estimates.

[IceRose]

The movie was scary, I don't like crazy demented Ompa Loompas. Well the acting was good but still evil squirrels. I prefer the original movie, it had more sense that this new one.

[Guest Leolas]

I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 2 days ago and I am hooked - obbsessed - i need to see it AT LEAST 10 more times before the dvd comes out and I watch it to death :animeswea Depp did an [B]awesome[/B] job of Wonka, he nailed it *bows down to Johnny Depp* Everything else about the film was alrite, but Johnny Depp makes it excellent, the Oompa Loompas do a good job of making it a great film too - i'd give it 20 out of 10....i really like it ^______^