I SO agree with him on Depp's version of Willy Wonka (it was bad)
-
thiscrazydancer — 16 years ago(November 03, 2009 09:16 PM)
I absolutely love Johnny Depp and everything he has been in except for this.This would have to be the one role of his I didn't care for.He wasn't right for this part.The Wonka he portrayed was too over the top and depressed,like a tour guide on crack or something.Wilders Wonka had a touch of class and amusement about him all nestled in his shy,eccentric personality.This is defenitily one of those roles that should not have been recast for a remake.
-
American-Alien — 16 years ago(November 14, 2009 03:56 PM)
The big problem with Burton's Wonka, in my opinion, is that he's yet another reflection of Burton. He's said so himself about other films, but it's obvious in all of them. He butchered Batman, Joker, Penguin, and even in works that aren't adaptations, it's clear that he has an ego the size of Saturn, and can't stand the thought of creating a character who isn't him in disguise.
vampires don't sparkle -
zmystico — 16 years ago(November 18, 2009 11:31 AM)
Burton did a good job with Batman in 89, but he made a big mistake casting Nicholson as The Joker, and Batman Returns was overall a bad film, he made the penguin a horny pervert and the Catwoman a 5b4psychotic headcase.
As far as WonkaWilder is the definitive Willy Wonka, he set the bar so high, that unless the next guy tops him, it just looks really bad.
Wayne Enterprises buys and sells companies like Stark Industries -
MarkAnthony1990 — 14 years ago(September 17, 2011 04:15 PM)
It's interesting because Dahl wrote 70% of the screenplay and you can really see Dahl's style in the original film. Why do people consider the new version closer to the book?
You're right, that is interesting that you would say something like that because Roald Dahl absolutely hated the original film because it wasn't dark enough. He may not have liked Burton's version either had he been able to see it but it was much closer to the dark tone Dahl liked. He didn't like the music and lightness of the original.
Babies kill TV shows! -
Shindiggy — 16 years ago(January 02, 2010 11:23 PM)
There is only one Willy Wonka and will the real Willy Wonka please stand up? Graciously Gene Wilder stands. I adore Depp, I think he's drop dead gorgeous but his remake is more for adults and Gene's is for children. Gene was so funny, Johnny was scary to say the least but I will give him the "don't touch that squirrels nuts". But that quote is not for children, or maybe my minds in the gutter. lol I knew when I heard that it was going to be a Tim Burton remake that it wasn't any child's story anymore. His movies are dark, in lighting and script. Anyone who saw the original with Gene knows that Depp's is way out there, even for Willy Wonka. Gene Wilder IS Willy Wonka just as Richard Harris IS Dumbledore and so forth.
-
Jake3988 — 15 years ago(April 08, 2010 09:24 PM)
The Oompa Loompas were all played by the same person surely with all the technology at his disposal he could've at least attempted to make them look different. Or hired more than 1 person. That was terrible.
Two, the songs were taken from the book but were just AWFUL. They made absolutely no sense and they were filmed in a fantasy setting that looked like something out of an over-the-top Vegas dancing show. It was freaking weird.
Three, what the hell was up with the camera angles? The camera was always pointing straight down or straight up. I swear the entire movie (well, the parts I managed to stomach) I never once saw a wall.
Burton tried to go WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY over the top. Some people like that, but I sure don't.
And it was probably one of the only movies i absolutely disliked Johnny Depp. He just did not fit the part at all. -
Wittyusername — 15 years ago(April 09, 2010 03:32 AM)
I must applaud the many good points raised here about the differences between the films! I personally did it completely the other way, watching the Burton Film first, and eventually watching the one with Gene afterwards, having heard much good about. I thought Depp was okay while watching the film, but having seen the sheer range of Gene in this film, I was quite blown away. Depp wasn't actually all that bad, but he sort of zoned in and couldn't muster different emotions, whereas Gene gave the character exactly the right emotions to make him a fully fleshed character, who didn't seem like the Oompa Loompas were leading stuff, he was in charge. I admittedly wasn't too fond of the musical part in this old one, it's quite a classic type of musical, and was easier for me to shrug off the Burton music, but that's just me generally not being fond of musicals.
-
precious2381 — 15 years ago(April 27, 2010 01:47 PM)
I also love the version with Gene and I think it has more class, charm and definitely more mystery, but I don't think the new version was that bad, it was just very different, I certainly didn't lose respect for the brilliant Johnny Depp.
-
GrinReeper — 15 years ago(October 06, 2010 11:02 PM)
I think the difference is that Depp's Wonka tried very hard to be dark. But Wilder's Wonka was complex; you could see that his mind was always working, and that there was something brooding and angry beneath the surface. His Wonka is interesting.
Burton just put his grubby fingers on it, adding his patent "Daddy issue" character, "quirky" characters, and "DAAAARKK" atmosphere. Someone needs to tell Burton that he's not really dark; he's the shallow, corporate dark akin to Hot Topic merchandise and goth make-up.
Uncle Moonshine's rage is buildin' like a storm in the Mississippi.
-
suicidea — 14 years ago(May 19, 2011 03:56 PM)
I'm not sure but I think Gene Wilder made that comment BEFORE the Burton version was completed and released. Anyway, I agree that it was "only about money."
I will never watch the Burton version unless someone holds a gun to my head. I couldn't care l2000ess if it's more faithful to the book or not. I couldn't care less if Depp is good or not. I won't watch it, because the Wilder version is special to me, and I don't want images from another movie popping in my mind upon the mentioning of Wonka.
The Wilder version was made at an era when movies were not 100 % about money, where talent and entertainment value still counted. The movie was a sweet memory from my childhood and I won't let anyone ruin that.
Think of the favorite song of you and your spouse, or a song that means a lot to you. Now picture it being performed by a screaming drunk dude who belches and farts every 30 seconds. It's not a compliment to the song, really, and ruins something that's special for you. That's how I feel about shallow remakes of classic movies.
Same goes for Pink Panther, Superman, Italian Job, The Mechanic, Moby Dick, even the cheesy Freddy and Jason. I love Steve Martin, I respect Depp and Burton for their great works in the past, but Hollywood cannot do remakes. Simple as that.
Never be complete. -
dogsoldier_spoon-1 — 14 years ago(March 27, 2012 10:46 AM)
Wilder never saw it because he thought it would be horrible and though he's right, I don't think you should judge a movie you haven't seen. I've enjoyed a fair share of remakes, some even as good or better as their predecessors. It just wasn't the case for Willy Wonka.