- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
I much prefer the slightly creepy and ominous drawings of the older editions.
Will...er, I mean Charlie and the Chocolate Factory — Page 3
I much prefer the slightly creepy and ominous drawings of the older editions.
- Time
- Post link
To be honest, I really can't say if this movie is more accurate to the book than WWATCF, but it did add certain elements, like a backstory for Wonka (I think Sessler mentioned that), and a lot more character traits for the other grandparents. And I did like elements of both those additions. Two of my favorite lines comes from the other grandpa (damn, I can't remember his name) and the completely senile other grandma ("I love grapes!"). My other is how Willy Wonka's flashbacks are almost as campy as the ones from Wayne's World. I love when he comes back from one, and he's just staring off into space when everyone gets his attention. "Sorry, I was having a flashback." Mr. Teavee asks, "Do these... flashbacks happen often?" Wonka responds, "Increasingly... today."
By the way, I have something I'm trying to remember? Charlie's dad, Mr. Bucket, was in this movie. I seem to recall him having an inconsistent history with these adaptations. The way I remember it was he was in the book, but his character was deceased in WWATCF. Is that right?
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Jedikev
I heard that the new CATF sucks.
Who told you that; every review I've seen of it has been good.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Hey, Warbler, since you seem to be really up on both the book and the original movie, could you answer my question? Is Charlie's father in the book and deceased in the original movie? Or is he in every adaptation? Or is he just in the new movie? Although I am about to watch the original movie in a few minutes, at least let me know for the book.
He is alive in the Book. Of course, Grandpa is still the one that takes Charlie to the chocolate factory. Charlie's father is not in the original movie. I can't remember wheither they said he was dead or not. That is one the new movie did get more accurate.
- Time
- Post link
a couple interesting comments about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in there
-Darth Simon
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin
0100111001101001011011100110101001100001
*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Well, I saw the movie at Sessler's insistance, and I thought it was terrible. Depp was awful. Whoever picked him for the role of Wonka should be shot. The back story should not have been added. It was not in the book and was not necessary. It only made the Wonka character less likable and ruined the ending. This is one movie that should not have been made. Why is it, Hollywood is insistant on remaking classics and ruining them? While I was there, I saw an advertisement for another remake that is doomed to failure. King Kong. Also I saw a poster for yet another remake. The Bad News Bears. Can't Hollywood come up with anything new? What's next? A remake of Casblanca directed by George Lucas and staring Hayden Christensen?
I thought King Kong looked awesome. I really can't wait to see it. Besides, the original movie is horrible... I mean, it's way to fake looking. It's pretty much just as bad as the old Godzilla movies.
Also, CATF really wasn't that bad of a movie... I think you just watched it with a slightly tainted view, maybe? It's alot easier to dislike something if you've already decided in your mind it's going to be awful.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: TheSessler
Tell me about it. The new illustrations are also "upbeat" and "fanciful" as well from their description.
I much prefer the slightly creepy and ominous drawings of the older editions.
The illustrator of the original artwork is a man called Quentin Blake. This is the first I have heard of his illustrations being replaced and I am disgusted. Blake illustarted all of dahl's books.
And what? Now the pygmies are white and fanciful? I am white. are they calling me a pygmy? are they saying I am fanciful just because I'm white? Goddam racists.
And as for King Kong, while I'm not against the remake, the original Harryhausen Kong was a breakthrough in animation and without pioneering movies like that CGI etc would not exist, so back off the original Kong and show him some love.
War does not make one great.
- Time
- Post link
The horrible effects are just part of what made it a bad movie. I can't watch it without falling asleep. I can understand how people in the 30s thought it was a breakthrough and thought it was awesome, but how can anyone now days think it's any good?
The remake however, looks amazing and I can't wait to watch it.
- Time
- Post link
That being said, I will probably go see this just to get a load of Burton's beautiful visuals.
Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.
- Time
- Post link
What a pointless remake. Now, I love Burton's stuff. And frankly I think the kids were great. But this movie suffers a host of problems that were positively evident in the trailer.
First and foremost, the film did not need to be remade. Second, if the Dahl family was going to allow this remake under the premise that it would match the original book more closely, then that's what they should have done. Instead, Tim Burton got his usual free rein and, together with Danny Elfman, they proceeded to act like a couple of kids in a candy store with $100 Million to spend.
Willy Wonka was traumatized as a kid because his father was an uptight dentist who wouldn't let him eat Candy? Where was that in the book? This was the entire motivation for his character and his weirdness.
And Willy Wonka NOT giving the factory to Charlie because he wouldn't leave his family behind? Touching, but not nearly as touching as the Everlasting Gobstopper twist at the end of the 1970 version. Guess what? Neither was in the book.
And, with sequel in hand, how can you not leave the movie setup for it's yet-to-be-filmed successor Charlie and The Great Glass Elevator?
Now for a moment about Elfman's score. DANNY, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD FIND A NEW MOTIF. The man has two songs: "The Simpson's Theme" and "Everything Else." I used to really dig his music but after hearing the same basic chords over and over, The Beatles and Elvis prove they're more inventive. Frankly I'm glad Elfman is off Spider-Man 3. Maybe they'll get a good score this time.
The best thing about Elfman's music was the lyrics to the Oompa Loompa songs and guess what ... he didn't write 'em, Roald Dahl did in the book. While I'm glad those sardonic words found the way onto the screen, could they have been any more ill-set to music? Doo-pah-de-doo indeed.
Now, can I say enough about how the "Sexiest Man Alive" has perhaps raped my childhood more than George Lucas? Johnny Depp drove the sardonic wit out of the character and concocted the only confection that he and Burton can seem to come up with: The most absolutely ill-adjusted main characters in movie history. He needed to play this one closer to Ichabod Crane, just as he should have played Ichabod closer to this one. Positive to negative, negative to positive. The look on the parents' faces as they watch Willy weird out the audience says it all. You half expect him to open his velvet coat and wave his own willy in front of the kids.
And he did this portrayal on purpose. It was mostly a middle-finger to the studio execs, not realizing how much of a middle-finger it is to kids around the globe.
What bugs me most of all is that I prophesied this movie. Not two months before this movie was announced I was sitting in my living room with my so charming wife watching Willy Wonka on HBO. I looked over and said "If they ever decide to remake this movie, Tim Burton should direct it." Slack jawed, she thought it was an inspired statement. Then my wish came true. Now is turned into a nightmare (before Christmas).
If I could place Gene Wilder's Wonka and Freddie Highmore's Charlie together, it would be the perfect Wonka movie. Instead, this one is more than a bit wonky.
P.S. Deep Roy rocked out loud in spite of Elfman's music and vocalizations.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
The illustrator of the original artwork is a man called Quentin Blake. This is the first I have heard of his illustrations being replaced and I am disgusted. Blake illustarted all of dahl's books.
Actually this is not quite correct. Quentin Blake and Roald Dahl did not first partner up until "The Enormous Crocodile" which was published in 1976. Now, I have the Charlie books that feature Quentin's drawings, but they were later editions. (Gasp! Going back and revising initial works to match what you discover later in life? Sounds like Lucas!) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was initially published in 1964 and I distinctly recall different artwork in my older sister's copy while we were growing up. This predates the Quentin artwork (which, I guess, dates me as well).
Quentin has illustrated some Dr. Seuss books as well. Very different visual style, with lots of water colors. I have a couple of these as well.
And just to set the record straight, I have a kid who reads a lot ... I wouldn't have remembered any of these details three years ago. But they're fresh on my brain once again because we become kids-at-heart through having kids of our own. I just hope he stays into books and eschews video games and TV. You know, so he'll know what words like eschew mean.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
I used to really dig his music but after hearing the same basic chords over and over, The Beatles and Elvis prove they're more inventive.
Not to get off topic, but this comment irritates me. I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but incase it is, for your information the Beatles were wildly inventive with their song structure and chord changes.
P.S Thanks for the info ADigitalMan, my mistake. I remember the Blake illustrations from my youth.
War does not make one great.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
- Time
- Post link
Charlie and the glass elevator??
- Time
- Post link
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
- Time
- Post link