I SO agree with him on Depp's version of Willy Wonka (it was bad)
-
cold_sky — 12 years ago(June 11, 2013 06:50 PM)
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the adaptations are faithful to the book or not. It is simply this: was the movie good? Or not?
And the Depp movie, along with pretty much 86% of Tim Burton's films, was sheer CRAP. -
gallagwar — 12 years ago(June 14, 2013 12:27 PM)
Say what you will about Burton's film, and I love Gene Wilder and miss him terribly, but he's really out of line on this, and is really the one doing the insulting. Honestly, he sounds arrogant and stupid.
Tim Burton didn't "remake" Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. He made an adaptation of the source material. How can you "remake" something that wasn't original to begin with? How is it an insult to Wilder if he had nothing to do with the creation of the source material or the character?
And this is just my opinion, but of all the people in the movie industry today, Burton is one of the few I feel comfortable in saying isn't doing it "for the money". Not that making money isn't a motivation for him (isn't it for everyone?), but he's not making his films to create big budget box office smashes. They're all stories he's passionate about. They're pet projects. If you don't like his style, that's fine. It drags on me often as well. But let's not act like he's adapting stories like Sweeney Todd with dollar signs in his eyes. The guy likes retelling classic stories in his own vision.
To the OP, this "new" Wonka you describe Depp playing was much closer to the real Wonka than Wilder's. And Dahl absolutely hated the original for the way the emphasis was placed on Wonka. The daddy issues in Burton's version were added on (and adapted from Dahl's follow up story), but otherwise, he's a much more accurate portrayal. -
JerseyJoe — 12 years ago(June 14, 2013 01:43 PM)
Good for Wilder he hit the nail right on the head, Hollywood sits around and thinks how can we make money even if the product is bad, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Karate Kid, Total Recall and so on. Remakes rarley work and it shows no originality.
-
TiggerPromfit — 12 years ago(June 14, 2013 02:26 PM)
The rehash was sooooo beep horrible lol!.
Everyone i know loves the original version and cant stand the rehash. Worst Depp and Burton film by far. Terri able CGI killed the chocolate factory, the cgi pasted oompa loompa with the beep god awful songs was cringe worthy. Depp and Charlie needed to be shot, that's how annoying they were.
Hate that film lol. So beep bad!!!! lol. I cant even be bothered to type properly! -
LittleWonders — 12 years ago(June 14, 2013 03:09 PM)
The original was absolute perfection and it was impossible to make a better version. I liked the Depp version but don't feel the need to see it more than once. I have watched the Wilder version at least 100 times in my life and have the sound track in my purse right now (just a coincidence, I'm taking it from work to home).
The only part I liked about the Depp version was how quirky and weird his Wonka was.
"You forgot your thingy!"- Burko, Empire Records -
JPSofCA — 12 years ago(June 16, 2013 02:06 PM)
I like "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" much better than Burton's spin on the story as well. It is one of those films, like "The Wizard of Oz," which may have sequels or prequels that could respectfully compliment the work, but nothing can be made to take its place.
I watched "Charlie" and I did not intensely hate the movie, as it was fun to see attention given to the story, but that's not to say that I treasure the film in any way, as there is nothing to treasure about it. After the first song I quipped its predictability that a rap-song would be next, totally expecting it to try to cater to every crowd. I forget if there was a country song in there, but there may as well have been. The film lacked thought, and merely executed a quick, once-over screen-write of an otherwise classic story, as if whatever came out of the writers, without revision, seems like a "go." It was just another Burton film, where everything looks that familiarly certain way.
There were a couple of films which had benefit from Burton's presence, but his Wonka venture was not one of them. -
nicolehering — 11 years ago(May 18, 2014 02:32 AM)
I agree too. The remake is bad. Johnny Depp was hideous. He hated children! Why would Willy Wonka hate children when they're his top customers and he wanted a child to win the contest? That was stupid. Gene's Willy Wonka didn't hate children. He was polite to all of the children and their families even when they were rude. He was strange, but not psychologically scarred like Depp's Willy Wonka. Gene also has sweet, friendly, twinkling eyes that seemed perfect for the role. Depp was not meant for the role at ALL. It made me sick when I watched it. Burton and Depp should have stayed away from it. They could have adapted a different Dahl book instead. The Twits is good or George's Marvelous Medicine!
-
dalbrech — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 01:11 PM)
Wilder is a far better Willy Wonka then Depp.
I liked a few things about the Burton version;it is closer to the book and darker then the 1971 film,and thanks to modern tech some things that could simply not be done in the 71 version could be donethe Squirrels and the fate of Veruca Salt for examplebut overall the 71 film is better. -
drunkbear — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 02:18 PM)
I like both of their interpretations of Willy Wonka. Gene Wilder played it as more of a creative artist, while Depp played it as more of a grown-up manchild. Roald Dahl's characters tend to be a little bit disturbing, and I thought that Depp brought that disturbing element to the role better than Wilder.
I LOVE Gene Wilder, DGMW and, as stated, I love both his and Depp's interpretations of Willy Wonka pretty much equally. I think Wilder's is more heart-warming, while Depp's is closer to the weirdness intended by Roald Dahl.- What are you gonna do, when the world catches on?