Wonka vs Charlie

[Jeff686]

My son's class is reading 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' in school. They just finished last week, and then ended by watching the movie (Tim Burton's version).

Coming from the era of Gene Wilder and the 1971 version, I just don't get the new one.

In fact, I think it is just twisted and wrong. Burton added all the mumbo jumbo flash back to Wonka's childhood. He and Johnny Depp created a bizarre and disjointed attempt at art, and ended up showing how strange they really are. Too bad they billed it as a kid's movie.

Anyone else think it is junk?

Edited December 17, 2008 by Jeff686

[JThompson]

I never did like any of Burton's stuff.

[gm iprod]

Like me you were spoiled by a brilliant version of a very good book.

So they had to do a remake. Clever actor and clever Director.

However it is aimed at the Playstation Generation. Which ain't me or you.

At least the school got them to read the book first and not just sit through the movie and them have to tell the world how the movie made them feel.

Ba$%^&ds.

I feel better now.

[SteveU]

The movie (redux) was an adult twist on a kids movie. I wouldn't recommend it for kids.

[Coolduckboy]

WIlly was 10x better than Charlie.

[JimmyZip]

Read the book and you realize that Willy is a more direct adaptation. The book is darker and deeper like the second film. However, I look at them as two different films. Charlie was more whimsical and light with Wilder lighting up the screen. My kids like both but prefer Willy. (They also watch Phantom Of The Opera and The Hunchback Of Notre Dame repeatedly so go figure)

Nothing ruined in my book.

[betterment]

At 26 I may be closer to the play station crowd, but I will say I enjoyed Charlie more because it told a story. When I watch Willy I see a crazy (for no reason) guy who is odd for no reason. I will agree that Charlie may be on the darker side than Willy and therefore limits the audience.

.02

Phil

I guess it should be said that Charlie is one of my favorite movies.

[reneet]

I've not ever read the book but have always loved the 1st movie with Gene Wilder (Wonka). The Burton Version (Charlie) has grown on me more each viewing but still a 2nd to the original. My 10 year old son has read the book and prefers the Charlie version.

[Intel6]

I grew up on the original and still think it is the better of the two. I got real tired of the dancing dwarf that was multiplied by CGI.

Neal in AZ

[Jim Norman]

Personally I think that the original is the better of the two. We seem to get caught up in the 'what we area capable of doing now with computers and special effects' and forgetting that we are making a move that should tell a story and be entertaining.

Yes, we can now do scenes like the opening of Private Ryan, extreme gore and much more realistic than the longest day, but do we really need to?

Ronald Reagan commented on sex scenes in movies, now they show you, in the past they would cut away to a curtain blowing in an open window. His comment was that our imaginations could provide more that his acting ever would have. I tend to agree and the nice thing was/is that we used to be able to watch a movie with the entire family. It wasn't drivel and it wasn't R-rated, it was a movie with some level of intelligence and if you paid attention you as an adult got the jokes and kids didn't. When they started to get the jokes, Mom and Dad knew they had young adults on their hands and no longer little kids.

Jim

[raz-0]

I like wonka better, although I have to disagree with people who think Charlie is darker. A color palette and some dental prosthesis does not a darker movie make.

[sargenv]

While I count Charlie as one of my top ten favorite movies, I'd have to say that for a remake, Willy is equally as good and a darker follow up to the child movie of the past. However having seen both versions recently, Gene still does a pretty creepy WW. Some of the stuff in the original movie could be looked at with some wondering about "what were they thinking?" and to me and the time it came out could have been a bad acid trip at one point (I've never done acid though). The CGI Oompa Loompa was kind of irritating but the squirrels were pretty cool.

I like both versions equally. One is a classic and the more modern darker adaptation, I thought, was a pretty good follow up. It doesn't hurt that I like both actors.

[scirocco38s]

All of Tim Burtons Movies SUCK. Nuff said.

[Seth]

I always enjoy the original.

The remake gives me a strong visceral effect.

It makes me want to vomit. I thought it was Edward Scissorhands in the chocolate factory.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Sethmark

[Graham Smith]

This is really tough. In general, I hate remakes (of good originals) unless they can bring something new and worthwhile to the movie. Basically, I just have to ask myself why remake a movie? Are the authors so short of original material?

An example of how not to do this was the remake of "Psycho" - which was a nearly shot by shot remake that was an utterly pointless waste of money. An example of how to do this somewhat better was Tom Savini's remake of the original "Living Dead", which was done with the cooperation of the original director. The result is two nearly identical movies with very different flavors. I happen to prefer the second version, but I think that Pat Tallman kicks Judith O'Deas ass so that distorts my opinion.

The Johnny Depp remake of Wonka definitely brings a complete new twist to the movie - but I'm not sure I really care for it that much. That may be more of a value judgment than a criticism, as I was not the target audience for either version, but there it is. And this is what makes this kind of thing tough.

As a further example, based on the trailers, I refuse to go see the remake of "Day the Earth Stood Still" as it completely destroys the point of the original film. Also because I know perfectly well that a new version that was true to the original but more up to date could be a damn good movie as the original movie is quite dated in many ways. I'm also swayed by my hatred of what has been done to a lot of damn good books when they were "adapted" to film. Adapted my ass, they were completely rewritten by egos incapable of giving due respect to the original author ("I Robot" springs to mind). But I digress...

The problem, as I have already alluded to, is all tied up with how attached anyone was to the original; the target audience of the two films; and the general taste in films of the viewer. The Wonka remake appears to be a reasonable attempt to rework a classic, but I cannot ever see the Johnny Depp version becoming a family classic the way the Gene Wilder version has. But at the same time, the original had it's dark moments, was originally a flop, and received some criticism for changes to the original book.

It's a funny old world when you get right down to it. And if someone offered me 10 million to redo Casablanca, I'd be on it faster than... {fill in the blank yourself}.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Graham Smith