Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory vs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory- Page 2

[suddenlyseymour]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 5:18pm

I definitely like the new version better. I loved Johnny Depp he was hilarious in my opinion. He had some really funny lines. I really loved Freddie Highmore as Charlie rather than the actor in the original. He was kinda lame for me. I like Veruca's demise in the new version better also. The golden egg thing in the original was kinda cheesy. The Veruca in the original was just so whiny I can't stand it, def like the Veruca in the new version better. What I also liked about the new version is that you see what happened to the kids in the end.
Updated On: 7/25/05 at 05:18 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/25/05 at 5:28pm

magruder - I heartily agree with your CGI comment and would go further to say I feel that way about computer animation taking over most three-dimensional special effects. I'm sorry, but there simply is no viable substitution for something real. Compare the original Star Wars trilogy with the new trilogy and you can instantly tell the difference. The original effects were simply more realistic. After seeing Top Gun on cable yesterday, Jarico said to me, "You probably will not see real planes in movies about planes any more." And he's right.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 4:12pm

MAJOR BUMP

Gene Wilder made a rare appearance in public recently and he SLAMMED Tim Burton's film.

QUOTE:

"I think it's an insult," Wilder, 80, said of Burton's film, which was called "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." "It's probably Warner Bros.' insult." Warner Bros. released "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and the film made $474 million around the world.

"It's all about money," Wilder said about the remake in a 2005 interview with The Guardian. "It's just some people sitting around thinking: 'How can we make some more money?' Why else would you remake 'Willy Wonka'? I don't see the point of going back and doing it all over again."

As Wilder said on Thursday during the event at New York's 92Y, he also had a problem with Burton's choices as director.

"Johnny Depp, I think, is a good actor, but I don't care for that director," Wilder said. "He's a talented man, but I don't care for him doing stuff like he did."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/gene-wilder-charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory_n_3441496.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

End Quote

Wilder is 100% correct. I know that Dahl hated the 1971 film, but it is a CLASSIC. I have seen most of the 2005 film and I quit during the scene after Mike Tevee got shrunk. I didn't like the kids in the film at all. Violet was a little Beyotch. She was even more unkind than Veruca. The girl playing Veruca in the 2005 had little to no personailty. Julie Dawn Cole, who played the role in the 1971 film, was flawless. It did not surprise me that she had an acting career that lasted for almost 40 years. I also did not like the songs from the Oompa Lompas in the 2005 film. They were way OVER-THE-TOP.

The original had more heart and the songs are so wonderfully memorable. It puts a smile on my face Plus, the kids never annoyed me whenever I watch it. Wilder definitely played the role of Willy Wonka much better than Depp. If I ever have children I will show them the 1971 film instead.



Updated On: 6/14/13 at 04:12 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 4:26pm

There always seems to be a confusion between the quality of an adapted work and the faithfulness of the adaptation. So many people equate them. The more faithful a film version of a book is, the better it is, automatically.

I can't disagree with this enough. These are two different media. They don't work the same way at all. Some of my favorite film adaptations of popular or "pop culture" books have not been completely faithful. Off the top of my head:

The Wizard of Oz
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
The Shining

Many more.

The Burton movie is fine. It works on its own quirky level. But it lacks heart. There is no emotional investment in any character, despite Freddie Highmore's lovely performance as Charlie. He has nothing to do but look around in breathless wonder. He's as two-dimensional as a paper doll. And it's not more faithful than the 1971 film (not with all that extraneous backstory for Wonka with his father, and that weird tacked-on ending).

The 1971 film has the charm and the heart that the remake lacks. And it's just as dark as the Depp version and adds such a great overall tone of satire.

Gene Wilder is probably "of an age" now where he doesn't give a crap about holding his tongue, although he's always been pretty frank with his opinion.

In this case, I'm glad he said what he did. And I agree with him.

[all that jazz]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 4:58pm

The art direction, production and costume design on the Burton adaptation are brilliant, but the original is still far more superior.

Gene's spooky speech during the boat ride in the original is one of my favorites film moments ever.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 5:22pm

I wonder what Gene has to say about Matthew Brodericks horrible performance in the musical film "The Producers". Leo Bloom is probably Mr. Wilders best performance on film and Mr. Broderick is dreadful!

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 7:00pm

Since Wilder and Brooks are friends, he'll probably keep his mouth shut.

But I'm sure he has a strong opinion about it.

Wllder is pretty humorous on the DVD for Willy Wonka when he tactfully (for him) says the kid who played Mike TeeVee was a total pain in the ass on set. A "hellion," to put it mildly.

(In Paris Themman's defense, he was also nine year's old at the time. Roughly three years younger than the other kids in the movie. But apparently, he was an unruly brat.)

Posted: 6/14/13 at 8:47pm

The older film is MADE by Wilder's performance. They talk about Willie Wonka and you wonder about him and then finally-- how long into the film?- he emerges- making a great entrance and from that second on he IS the movie.

And he's warm he's cold, he's crazy, he's brilliant- and most of all- Willie Wonka (and Gene Wilde) are both obviously having the time of their life.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 9:42pm

How was Willy Wonka received when it came out? I ask because I've never considered it much of a classic at all, but I wonder if that's because for some reason I never saw it as a kid--I was probably in my early 20s before I saw the whole thing. People who do love it, in my experience mostly grew up with it, so a part of me wonders if it's almost a situation like Annie where a movie was not well regarded, but now is by millions of kids who grew up with it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 9:52pm

One of the problems with the 1971 film is that it was genuinely made to sell a candy bar.

No joke. That's how they got the financing at Warner Bros. (from Quaker Oats), and that's why the film's title was changed to WILLY WONKA instead of Charlie. Because the candy bar tie-in was with Wonka bars (not Charlie bars).

The director Mel Stuart talks about this on the DVD.

My recollection is that the movie did well, got good, solid reviews, had a #1 (Billboard) hit song with "Candy Man" ... but was never taken that seriously because it felt like a "packaged deal to sell a candy bar" all along.

However, if you want to see Roger Ebert's original 1971 "glowing," four-star (out of four) review of the film ...


CLICK HERE

Updated On: 6/14/13 at 09:52 PM

[jackieoh]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 9:59pm

I do not like Johnny Depp but the tonality of the remake was truer to Dahl's book than the original.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 10:14pm

More on how it did originally ...

The score was nominated for an Oscar "Best Song Score or Adapted Score" (it lost to Fiddler on the Roof).

Gene Wilder was up for a Golden Globe as Best Actor Musical/Comedy (he lost to Topol in Fiddler on the Roof).

The film recouped but was not a big moneymaker. And Quaker Oats was more interested in launching its candy line in conjunction with the film. Ultimately, though, they decided NOT to produce a Wonka Bar and walked away from it just as the movie was coming out. So the whole marketing campaign for the movie floundered as a result

It seems to have gotten mostly positive reviews (not just Ebert), but it wasn't enough to turn it into a big hit.

Here is a terrific interview I just found with Mel Stuart (the film's director) about the entire experience.

I love that it comes from "Failuremag.com." LOL
LINK

Posted: 6/14/13 at 10:14pm

I'm with you Besty- and it was definitely seen as a "Children's movie." Not the kind of thing an adult would sit t through except with the kids.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 10:27pm

Best, thanks for those thoughts and the links! I've never really thought of it before, but now wonder why I had never looked it up before.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/14/13 at 10:32pm

A couple of cool things come out of that article I linked to (the interview with Mel Stuart) ...

He talks in this interview about the pressure to change the color of the Ooompa-Loompas from "African like pygmies" to something else ... orange faces with green hair, and he came up with those colors on the spot. And they stuck.

But he goes on to say the title of the film was changed from "Charlie" to "Willy Wonka" also because of racial pressure that "Charlie" was a common term used by African-Americans to describe a white boss. While that is true, if you watch the DVD, Mel clearly says they changed the title to "Willy Wonka' because of the tie-in to the candy bar that was being launched by Quaker Oats, who put up the money for the film.

Interesting how stories change over the years ...

Also, cool to note that Jean Stapleton was cast as Mike Teevee's mother, but asked for a day to give Stuart her answer ... the next day she called to tell him she'd accepted a regular role on a sitcom instead, and turned him down. (It was "All In the Family")

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 9:35am

A lot of people like to bring up the fact that Dahl "hated" the Gene Wilder version, but I've also heard it said that he claimed he never even watched it. It sounds like he was upset by the changes to his screenplay (the inserting the various quotes from classical literature for Wonka, and, of course, the ending) and he took it as a personal vendetta to never even view the film to see how it actually holds up.

I also don't believe, despite what some people claim, that he would like the Burton/Depp version. Turning Wonka into a child-hating germaphobe with repressed daddy issues would probably not sit too well with him.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 9:58am

^ I agree about all of that.

It's clear to me that Dahl had "sour grapes" when they took his adapted screenplay (he still receives solo credit) and then brought in David Seltzer to do a complete overhaul.

Seltzer didn't just add a line here or there, he rewrote it. Dahl's reaction is understandable, but completely biased under the circumstances. It's an irrational opinion based on the fact that they brought someone else in to "fix" his own work.

On a similar note ... regarding "The Wizard of Oz." The original screenplay was written by Noel Langley, who was all of 26 years old at the time. But MGM took his script and hired two more writers, Florence Ryerson and Edgar Allen Wolf, to come in and punch it up, adding much of the humor for the three sidekicks and the Wizard (that "Vaudeville" touch). They made many drastic changes to it.

When Noel Langely sat for the first time (at the premier) seeing the finished film. He got up from his seat in tears and left the theatre. He hated the movie and never watched it again.

I think it's pretty sad, actually. Although I understand the frustration. But clearly the collaboration of multiple talents is what enabled these screenplays to be as strong as they were, in the end. Even if there were some unfortunate emotional "casualties" as a result.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 12:09pm

best12, any idea if a draft of Dahl's screenplay before the rewrites ever leaked out? I would be curious to see just what kind of direction the film could have taken.

[best12bars]

Posted: 6/15/13 at 12:30pm

I've never seen one, but I'm sure it exists.

Mel talks about the biggest changes in that interview link. Giving Charlie a test of his honesty, making Slugworth an actual nemesis in the story for Wonka. Those were added in by Seltzer at the request of Stuart. The two of them really collaborated on the revisions.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia (take it with a grain of Veruca salt), Setlzer rewrote 30 percent of Dah'ls script.

By the way, if David Seltzer's name rings a mild bell, it's because he wrote the original story and screenplay for "The Omen."

Updated On: 6/15/13 at 12:30 PM