Charlie And Chocolate Factory(Johnny Depp Remake) 03/17/09

[Matthew21]

Originally Posted by EricJ

It tends to get praise from a LOT of people who Haven't Seen the Original...

As it is, we get huge chunks of the movie devoted to isolated bits of book-backstory that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot (the Prince's palace, Wonka's trip to the jungle), which is usually the clear mark of a screenwriter and/or director who....just had no foggy idea what the book was about. -_-

once again you guys dont get it. the prince pondecherrys palace was in the book. it was actually a chapter title. as was wonkas trip to the jungle. so they followed the book mpre than the original. the songs in the new one are also in the book. just because it doesnt directly serve theplot....it actually does though because it jus shows how selfish people can be. the movie is pretty much just like the book. i like the gene wilder version but this one is truer to Dahls original work.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Pyre

Rather have the original.

+1 depps version sucks

[depooter]

Originally Posted by Matthew21

once again you guys dont get it. the prince pondecherrys palace was in the book. it was actually a chapter title. as was wonkas trip to the jungle. so they followed the book mpre than the original. the songs in the new one are also in the book. just because it doesnt directly serve theplot....it actually does though because it jus shows how selfish people can be. the movie is pretty much just like the book. i like the gene wilder version but this one is truer to Dahls original work.

the bottom line is that Wilder's Wonka is much more engaging and magical than Depp's...

[dubldown]

Am I the only one that wants to kick people in the neck when they say something like "it's nothing like the book" or "read the book, it's way better"?

Yay, you read books, good job.

Now shut the hell up I'm watching a movie.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Matthew21

once again you guys dont get it. the prince pondecherrys palace was in the book. it was actually a chapter title. as was wonkas trip to the jungle. so they followed the book mpre than the original. the songs in the new one are also in the book. just because it doesnt directly serve theplot....it actually does though because it jus shows how selfish people can be. the movie is pretty much just like the book. i like the gene wilder version but this one is truer to Dahls original work.

Thought the original was truer to Dahl, in that Dahl actually SCREENWROTE IT!!!
Being "close to a book" doesn't mean throwing darts blindfolded at a chapter list and filming them blind-verbatim...It involves some reader's instinct for how to condense the essential storyline into 90 minutes, without losing the larger message or basic compass.

And Burton's story-compass has been going around in circles for longer than Jack Sparrow's.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Ouch. Although a few parts of the old one might seem a little dated or whatever, its still the only version to have. I hate remakes when there really isnt a reason to do the remake. There wasnt anything really wrong with the original.

And I like Johnny Depp.... but Gene Wilder IS Willy Wonka. Its just blasphemy to say otherwise!

This film is not a remake. It's a new adaptation of the classic book.

Secondly, no, there is plenty reason to retread the story-- tell a more faithful rendition of the book's story, or to take the story in a new direction. Sadly, this film attempted to both make a more faithful book adaptation AND add new stuff.

@ above: there are things lifted from the book, but then there are completely original things. All of the overt backstory they gave Wonka, and the arc about his past being resolved is completely new to this film, as is the ending SORT-OF. Should have ended with them in the Great Glass Elevator.

Originally Posted by depooter

the bottom line is that Wilder's Wonka is much more engaging and magical than Depp's...

The engaging and magical element you allude is called nostalgia, mostly.

Even so, the visuals are SO much better in this telling of the story. If they could have done a film with a Wonka a little more like Gene Wilder's (in look, I mean, Depp's characterization wasn't bad), with the art direction of the recent film adaptation, and telling the very same story as this new one (minus the stupid ending and added Wonka material)... that would have been great. Either way, I know this film is gonna end up in my collection regardless. Film is a visual media, and this film really hits visual heights for me.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

The engaging and magical element you allude is called nostalgia, mostly.

"Mostly", but not quite:
On the interviews for the '71, Gene Wilder said he only took the role on the condition that he could do that somersault-fakeout entrance, so that for the rest of the movie, we would never know just quite how much about his character to believe at face value, and just how much method was to his madness...

...THAT'S called Understanding the Story. Which Tim & Johnny don't.

[Elbie]

I don't think this coming out on this date because Amazon don't even have a pre order up.

[assydingo]

Two movies can co-exist and be enjoyed without denying the pleasure of the other...

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by Blu Blood

+1 depps version sucks

-1. Gene Wilder's was lame and boring. I hated early Hollywood the way they changed Charlie and The Chocolate factory, wizard of Oz into happy family friendly sing-a-longs

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

-1. Gene Wilder's was lame and boring. I hated early Hollywood the way they changed Charlie and The Chocolate factory, wizard of Oz into happy family friendly sing-a-longs

To each his own.

[DigitalfreakNYC]

I hate to admit it but the original isn't nearly as interesting as the Burton one. I watched the original the day before I saw the Burton in theaters and I think it only helped to enhance it.
I do agree that it's about nostalgia. Although I did watch the original when I was little, it just seems far too dated to me.

[RYJAPE21]

Originally Posted by Elbie

I don't think this coming out on this date because Amazon don't even have a pre order up.

Yeah I noticed that too. Does anybody know when it will be released?

[helius]

releaselists.com now has this listed under April 7.

[HeavyHitter]

The original was far better and the Ooompla-Loompa and music in the new one was TERRIBLE and incredibly annoying. Johnny Deep imitating Michael Jackson further added to the mess.

The only thing I did like were some of the CGI visuals inside the factory.

[Tezs]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

The original was far better and the Ooompla-Loompa and music in the new one was TERRIBLE and incredibly annoying. Johnny Deep imitating Michael Jackson further added to the mess.

The only thing I did like were some of the CGI visuals inside the factory.

Agreed.Deep Roy(the ummm,person who plays the "new" Oompa Loopa)
really weirds me out.I like most of Johnny Depps work, but could not stand him as Willy Wonka(much,much too young to play the part).Gene Wilder had him beat by longshot.I try and make prentend the Burton's version doesn't exist.

[browinie]

I haven't seen the remake yet, but I loved the original. I've been waiting to see this for awhile now (I'd rather it be on Blu-ray), so I hope April is the fixed month for release.

[CoalClear]

The new one?




....Gross.

[that1guystudios]

Yeah, so this is definitely not coming out March 17th. That's next week.
A UK version is being released on April 9th. But it hasn't been announced for the US yet.
I'll just import the UK version in April if Warner hasn't announced it for USA release by then, since WB Blu-ray discs are always identical to the US releases.

[richieb1971]

Mine has already been shipped, should be here Tuesday at latest.

Will give impressions. YAY!