Tim Burton's CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY.

[bsu legato]

Pfft....it's spelled "Oompa Loompa", you stupid newbie! Spell check before you post!

[EXO]

Not with Michael there... he's gonna put the UMP in the loompas!

[ewilen]

Planet of the Apes wasn't really a remake of the 60's movie...like this film, it was a recinematization of the original book. Not a very faithful one, apparently. Certainly not a very good one.

Getting really sick of rehashes here. Spider-Man has been good, but I don't think it was ever done very successfully before.

The book is actually quite good. The first movie wasn't very true to it either, for what it's worth.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that. But regardless of that, the Heston PotA is a genre-transcending classic.

[Blaine23]

Planet of the Apes wasn't really a remake of the 60's movie...like this film, it was a recinematization of the original book. Not a very faithful one, apparently. Certainly not a very good one.

Getting really sick of rehashes here. Spider-Man has been good, but I don't think it was ever done very successfully before.

Remake - a movie that's been made before.

Adaptation - a movie based on a story from another medium.

Just because the original PotA was based on a novel, as was Wonka, does not make either any less of a remake. The marketing crew may try to play it up as a "recinematization" (is that really even a word?) of the original material, but that's just window dressing. They are remakes because they are trading in on what has previously been established and registered in cinema before. Not only do they tend to lift visual, story, and even editing ideas from the original at will - but they also play to the market of the average moviegoer by using the same title, etc. Tell the average American that PotA is a new vision based from the source material and they'll stare at you blankly.

Yes, the screenwriter may go back to the original source material to try and find a fresh tack on how to make the new version different without simply relying on new effects to bring freshness to a movie that everyone's essentially seen before - but again, don't kid yourself into buying that these movies are in any way a "new vision"... it can happen, but it's really, really rare that that's the real reason a movie is remade.

The studios want security and instead of risking millions on an untested idea, they sink dough into remakes and popular adaptations that will bring a certain amount of audience in the door from the get-go. Every job, especially the director and stars are greatly influenced by the amount of money flowing on a gig like this. There's even a certain sense of lowered expectation, too. If it fails, then it was simply that audiences loved the original too much to enjoy the new one... or "how could we compete with a classic? We just made a homage."

None of which is really true. Asses get put in theater seats and that generates revenue. End of story.

So, yes, PotA is really a remake. Wonka will be too.

Spider-man is an adaptation, almost strictly. The confusion you're getting is simply because Spider-Man was a hugely popular character to be adapted to film for the first time.

[ewilen]

Cinematization is a real word. Recinematization is a natural coinage.

There is a definite logical and conceptual (not to mention legal) difference between adapting a novel to film once, and then adapting it again, as opposed to redoing the film.

I suppose Browning's Dracula is a remake of Murnau's Nosferatu. And "Lois and Clark" was a remake of the George Reeves "Superman". After all, both were live-action TV shows.

Tell the average American that PotA is a new vision based from the source material and they'll stare at you blankly.

This means nothing--it's their typical reaction to everything.

[Wes]

What, is it supposed to have a dark tone ot it?!? I hope they have some of the original songs to it.

[Max Jenius]

Yeah, thos Chumba-Wumbas rock

[do not disturb]

no reason for this to be a remake, it'll never be better than the original.

why can't hollywood come up with something original for a change?

last original movie i saw was SAW and that ain't saying much.

[eriku]

They are remakes because they are trading in on what has previously been established and registered in cinema before. Not only do they tend to lift visual, story, and even editing ideas from the original at will - but they also play to the market of the average moviegoer by using the same title, etc.

Well, the original was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and Tim Burton's is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...

I bet there are a hell of a lot of people in this country that will think it's a sequel.

[Wes]

They are remakes because they are trading in on what has previously been established and registered in cinema before.  Not only do they tend to lift visual, story, and even editing ideas from the original at will - but they also play to the market of the average moviegoer by using the same title, etc. 

Well, the original was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and Tim Burton's is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...

I bet there are a hell of a lot of people in this country that will think it's a sequel.

Do we honesly know it's not? I mean, what facts do we have? It's a stretch, but I could see the one kid turning out like Jonny Deep looks like.

[Ladic]

[UN Spacy]

Angus looks decent but.....is that an Ompa Loompa?

[Ghadrack]

One of the originals if I am not mistaken!

[RichterX]

Parent's give their kids to creepy looking guys just to press molestation charges...

This movie is already creeping me out...

[Roy Focker]

What happen to that other movie they going to make in the 90's?

They even had this little girl actress who was suppose to be Charlie's sister or something appear on the tonight show to help with early promotion for it.

Does anyone remember that episode of the tonight show?

[eriku]

Nice pics, all the characters look great! I think Depp makes a fantastic looking Wonka.

[Gabriel]

Not too bad, but the lipstick is pushing it.

[RichterX]

What, is it supposed to have a dark tone ot it?!? I hope they have some of the original songs to it.

Almost all Roald Dahl story are kind of dark, mostly kids taken revenge of evil adults. I don't remember that well the book, I think Charlie's grandpa and family were good people. I think the only ones that get punished are the other kids.

[Ladic]

Teaser is up and it looks like crap.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/cha...factoryqt1.html

[uminoken]

Teaser is up and it looks like crap.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/cha...factoryqt1.html

Yeah......that's pretty disturbing, wonder if they're going to kill off the kids like the book did

[UN Spacy]

I'll just say it now.

Gene Wilder > Johnny Depp

[Noriko Takaya]

It is time to say this. I am old enough to have seen this movie when I was a kid during it's run, and I am worried about this new one. I was 6 years old when I saw it, and have loved this movie ever since.

So, here goes: Tim Burton is RAPING MY CHILDHOOD!

[eriku]

Other than that song playing during the trailer, I don't see anything to get worried about. And even if the movie isn't that great, I'm sure I'll at least be entertained by Depp's performance.

[Feyd-Rautha]

yeah..depp will surely rock in this!

gawd knows about the rest of the flick..

is it me or is tim burton highly over-rated?? ..i loved ed-scissorhands...but that was like 15 years ago!

everything he touches has this warped-plastic, half-assed scary(oh i justed peed myself)look too it..

i'm not impessed with him...depp is his saving grace(imho)

Edited December 10, 2004 by Feyd-Rautha

[Ladic]

yeah..depp will surely rock in this!

gawd knows about the rest of the flick..

is it me or is tim burton highly over-rated?? ..i loved ed-scissorhands...but that was like 15 years ago!

everything he touches has this warped-plastic, half-assed scary(oh i justed peed myself)look too it..

i'm not impessed with him...depp is his saving grace(imho)

Big Fish was awesome.

[Jemstone]

yeah..depp will surely rock in this!

gawd knows about the rest of the flick..

is it me or is tim burton highly over-rated?? ..i loved ed-scissorhands...but that was like 15 years ago!

everything he touches has this warped-plastic, half-assed scary(oh i justed peed myself)look too it..

i'm not impessed with him...depp is his saving grace(imho)

"Half-assed scary"? You don't get what Burton's works. They have never intended to be "scary" just the point of view of the midunderstood outcast everyone else sees as "weird, freaky or "scary". Maybe you'd get it if you've seen his early student work.

[bsu legato]

Farnsworth: Who are those horrible orange creatures over there?

Glermo: Why those are the Grunka Lunkas! They work here in the Slurm factory.

Farnsworth: Tell them I hate them.

[Max Jenius]

Farnsworth: Who are those horrible orange creatures over there?

Glermo: Why those are the Grunka Lunkas! They work here in the Slurm factory.

Farnsworth: Tell them I hate them.

That's my favorite line from Futurama!

And for the record; The original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory sucked! The new one is better by default because one can only go up from there.

[Noriko Takaya]

Hey! I just realized where I've seen that guy who is playing an Oompa Loompa. Remember the movie Flash Gordon? He was that alien dude being drug around by Princess Aura.

[Wes]

I think this is out now. Anyone seen it? Is it any good?

[reddsun1]

Gene Wilder will always be Willy Wonka to me.

"You LOSE! You get NOTHING! Good day, sir!"

[Keith]

Saw it, and as much as I love Tim Burton, I hate this movie. Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka is just as spoiled, juvenile, etc as all of the children put together. It makes the lessons entirely pointless. The new "dentist" plot point just wastes time, and takes the story absolutely nowhere it needs to go. The Oompa Loompa songs are so noisy, you can't even hear the lyrics (again, making them pointless), and it overall has an all flash/no substance feel. All that talk about trying to be closer to the book than the 70's movie, and they deviate even further for no real apparent reasons.

The old Gene Wilder one is infinately better. Willy Wonka should be a Genius character that comes off as a bit evil to teach the kids, not someone who's just as stupid & petty as them.

[Druna Skass]

So I take it I'm the only one here who liked it?

I've seen both and this just seems to be a diffrent take on the story. I found this one to be more entertaining than the original.

Willy Wonka should be a Genius character that comes off as a bit evil to teach the kids, not someone who's just as stupid & petty as them.

OK and the original came off as a bit evil how? If anything the original guy didn't really seem too far from "normal."

[Sumdumgai]

So I take it I'm the only one here who liked it?

I've seen both and this just seems to be a diffrent take on the story. I found this one to be more entertaining than the original.

Willy Wonka should be a Genius character that comes off as a bit evil to teach the kids, not someone who's just as stupid & petty as them.

OK and the original came off as a bit evil how? If anything the original guy didn't really seem too far from "normal."

315441[/snapback]

I liked both versions of the movie.

This one showed how adults can be wrong and screw up too because of how their parents raised them as a kid.

I liked the humor of both Wonkas. The Depp version is creepy and I like it. The Wilder version is kind of psycho and I like it too.

[Skull Leader]

I LOVED the new version of the movie... but one thing kinda seems strange to me. Johnny Depp in numerous interviews has stated that he tried really hard to go in a different direction with the WW character than Gene Wilder did. I dunno, it almost seems that the harder he tried to go in a different direction, the closer he was to Gene's version.