If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Oh, you made a remake of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"? How insulting. You must be so proud   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 140
    More: Interesting, Gene Wilder, Willy Wonka, Johnny Depp, moviefone, Mel Brooks, insults, TV movies  
•       •       •

7627 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 Jun 2013 at 12:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-15 07:36:26 PM
assets.diylol.com
 
2013-06-15 08:12:39 PM
No, they made a movie based off the book you also made a movie based off of.
 
2013-06-15 09:58:39 PM

Nabb1: No, they made a movie based off the book you also made a movie based off of.


They should make a play based on the movie based on the book and then make a movie out of that.
 
2013-06-15 10:12:32 PM
When the movie Sands Of Time came out, based in the classic video game, they came out with a tie-in game for it.

A tie-in game. Based on a movie. Based on a game.

Maybe they'll make a movie about it someday.
 
2013-06-15 10:38:13 PM
Roald Dahl despised Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka. And he made the guy up. He never allowed another movie to be made of his books again while he was alive.

So I guess people in glass elevators shouldn't throw stones.
 
2013-06-15 10:42:46 PM
And really, the Johnny Depp version is pretty entertaining, except all the Oompa Loompa songs suck.
 
2013-06-15 10:45:31 PM

fusillade762: Nabb1: No, they made a movie based off the book you also made a movie based off of.

They should make a play based on the movie based on the book and then make a movie out of that.


You dawg, I heard you like Willy Wonka. . .

/Did I just cross the memes?
//I thought crossing the memes was bad.
 
2013-06-15 10:46:59 PM
frank baum crawled out of his grave and raped judy garland during the wizard of oz shoot true story
 
2013-06-15 10:51:00 PM

Confabulat: And really, the Johnny Depp version is pretty entertaining, except all the Oompa Loompa songs suck.


Perhaps, but they were also closer to the lyrics in Roald Dahl's book, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory".
 
2013-06-15 11:07:20 PM

Sim Tree: A tie-in game. Based on a movie. Based on a game.


Stree Fighter: The Movie: The Game
 
2013-06-15 11:31:16 PM
Of course Wilder is right. Hollywood is less about story telling and artistry than ROI for investors.
 
2013-06-16 12:36:39 AM

Confabulat: Roald Dahl despised Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka. And he made the guy up. He never allowed another movie to be made of his books again while he was alive.

So I guess people in glass elevators shouldn't throw stones.


Nice.
 
2013-06-16 12:51:15 AM
This isn't a repeat from 2005?
 
2013-06-16 12:51:50 AM
Gene Wilder's willy wonka was about 1000 times better than Johnny Depp's, so he may have a point there.  The problem isn't that they made another willy wonka movie, it's that the previous one was a classic and the new one sucked.
 
2013-06-16 12:56:22 AM
at first i was going to be mad about linking to huffpost instead of the original article, and then i saw their web design. good choice.
 
2013-06-16 01:02:58 AM
The remake was pretty bad.  When Burton and Depp get together they're guaranteed to create some character completely devoid of anything that isn't remotely alien.  The Wonka and Mad Hatter characters are complete nonsense.  Wilder's Wonka works because he's identifiably human.  There's somewhere for the bizarreness to come from.
 
2013-06-16 01:03:41 AM
Wilder basically made the original. Then again he can do no wrong in my eyes, so I may be a bit biased.
 
2013-06-16 01:04:23 AM
I read the book and hadn't seen the first movie before and god I hate musicals.
 
2013-06-16 01:05:19 AM
I'm a Tim Burton fan, and I thought he farked that one up.

But maybe that's just because I love the first Wonka so much. Never read the book.
 
2013-06-16 01:05:53 AM

SpikeStrip: frank baum crawled out of his grave and raped judy garland during the wizard of oz


then he hanged a munchkin.

Wilder's right about Burton. Fantastic visual director but absolutely shiat when it comes to story (and he's admitted as much)
 
2013-06-16 01:08:00 AM

fusillade762: They should make a play based on the movie based on the book and then make a movie out of that.


The Commodore 64 game for Blade Runner wasn't based on the movie, it was based on the soundtrack to the movie. Or at least that's what they claimed when they couldn't get the rights from the film company to do the game. Probably would get sued into oblivion if they tried that today but in the 80s IP laws were much less restrictive.

As far as the movies go, I don't see why people are always so obsessed with declaring one to be great and the other terrible in this situation. There seems to be something in our DNA that can't accept multiple entities existing in the same general space. So we get people angry because someone else uses a different type of phone or game console. There's nothing wrong with not liking one of the movies but it's also ok to like both. They're both based on the same source material but use different interpretations. Why look at the second movie like it is trying to one up the first movie? They're both independent of each other. You can like one, both, or neither. There is no obligation to love one and therefore have to hate the other. I suspect this is mostly a case of "how dare you meddle with my childhood!" rather than a rational viewing of the movies. But if there are things about the second movie that a person really honestly dislikes, that's unfortunate but everyone has the right to an opinion. I just hope they're open to judging things independent of their childhood memories of something else.
 
2013-06-16 01:08:39 AM

Confabulat: And really, the Johnny Depp version is pretty entertaining, except all the Oompa Loompa songs suck.


Almost all I remember of them is the electric guitar riffs on the TV kid's song.
 
2013-06-16 01:30:59 AM

t3knomanser: Sim Tree: A tie-in game. Based on a movie. Based on a game.

Stree Fighter: The Movie: The Game


You just had to remind me of that atrocious game, huh?
 
2013-06-16 01:35:07 AM

Alphax: Confabulat: And really, the Johnny Depp version is pretty entertaining, except all the Oompa Loompa songs suck.

Almost all I remember of them is the electric guitar riffs on the TV kid's song.


I actually liked that song.
 
2013-06-16 01:39:12 AM

Nabb1: No, they made a movie based off the book you also made a movie based off of.


And it was a piece of shiat. Unlike the Wilder version.
 
2013-06-16 01:43:42 AM

Confabulat: Roald Dahl despised Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka. And he made the guy up. He never allowed another movie to be made of his books again while he was alive.


He was pissed that the director hired another writer to redo Dahl's script at the last minute (Dahl was a successful screenwriter at that point, havig penned two James Bond films and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, among others)  and that they didn't hire Spike Milligan to play Wonka.

The entire production (paid for and largely run by Quaker Oats, who had no idea how to make movies) was a fiasco, and the movie was a notorious flop when it was released.  It was only years later that people started regarding it as a classic.

And if I remember correctly, Dahl was involved in the production of the WItches before he died, so he didn't completely disown film versions of his books.
 
2013-06-16 01:45:04 AM
I think the real problem was that they decided that Wonka, as a reclusive celebrity, should just go ahead and become the Michael Jackson of candy.
 
2013-06-16 01:46:45 AM

EngineerAU: As far as the movies go, I don't see why people are always so obsessed with declaring one to be great and the other terrible in this situation. There seems to be something in our DNA that can't accept multiple entities existing in the same general space. So we get people angry because someone else uses a different type of phone or game console. There's nothing wrong with not liking one of the movies but it's also ok to like both. They're both based on the same source material but use different interpretations. Why look at the second movie like it is trying to one up the first movie? They're both independent of each other. You can like one, both, or neither. There is no obligation to love one and therefore have to hate the other. I suspect this is mostly a case of "how dare you meddle with my childhood!" rather than a rational viewing of the movies. But if there are things about the second movie that a person really honestly dislikes, that's unfortunate but everyone has the right to an opinion. I just hope they're open to judging things independent of their childhood memories of something else.


I suppose it turns tribal at some point. This is natural behavior but I'm not sure how it's useful for us to want to oppose each other in factions. You people eating flour tortillas are out your minds though, and I would wish death upon you, but you're cursed enough as it is, eating flour tortillas on purpose.

Once someone asked me what kind of movies I liked, and I was stumped.
 
2013-06-16 01:47:46 AM

Strolpol: I think the real problem was that they decided that Wonka, as a reclusive celebrity, should just go ahead and become the Michael Jackson of candy.


Isn't he? Inviting a bunch of 9 year olds to his secret factory?
 
2013-06-16 01:48:10 AM
except all the Oompa Loompa songs suck.

f-you buddy, those were Dahls' original songs and Deep roy was awesome
 
2013-06-16 01:54:08 AM

Bith Set Me Up: This isn't a repeat from 2005?


i.qkme.me
 
2013-06-16 01:57:43 AM
The Depp version was a bad egg.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-16 02:01:50 AM

Nabb1: No, they made a movie based off the book you also made a movie based off of.


I have to agree with him.  It seems like they are looking for quick easy profit so they find a movie that was successful and make it again.  It does not really matter if it is a remake of an original movie or a new adaptation of story that was already done as a movie, it is all just recycling.
 
2013-06-16 02:02:49 AM
It really was.

I respect the balls it took to even attempt a remake, but it sucked compared to Wilder's version.  He nailed it.
 
2013-06-16 02:07:11 AM
Gene did a spot on the Mel Brooks film thing.
Haven't seen him in a few years and they caught up with him.
 
2013-06-16 02:07:15 AM
I have to say that while I like Johnny Depp as an actor in most things (I haven't seen the new Lone Ranger movie, so that opinion may dramatically changed based off the few trailers I've seen), I'd say that the characterization of Wonka that Wilder played was far better. He was more human, more identifiable, far less creepy, but still obviously odd.

I honestly felt like the Burton movie lacked anything resembling a soul, or warmth at all.
 
2013-06-16 02:09:04 AM

Mock26: Nabb1: No, they made a movie based off the book you also made a movie based off of.

I have to agree with him.  It seems like they are looking for quick easy profit so they find a movie that was successful and make it again.  It does not really matter if it is a remake of an original movie or a new adaptation of story that was already done as a movie, it is all just recycling.


What's the difference between that and adapting a popular book? It's all just feeding off what's already established and has a good chance of profit / ROI.

Who are "they?" Movie execs? These aren't art films. Movies are produced to sell tickets.
 
2013-06-16 02:10:49 AM

Confabulat: And really, the Johnny Depp version is pretty entertaining, except all the Oompa Loompa songs suck.


He most certainly was not. Depp sucked and turned the character into a total pansy. It was awful.
 
2013-06-16 02:11:14 AM

Zarquon's Flat Tire: It really was.

I respect the balls it took to even attempt a remake, but it sucked compared to Wilder's version.  He nailed it.


Wilder's Willy Wonka was written and acted so as to be more of a father figure to Charlie (like that wasn't obvious from the git-go); in the book, and Depp's version, he was a more menacing and enigmatic figure. I don't think Wilder's Wonka and Depp's Wonka are even comparable. Depp's is truer to the book in some respects; Wilder's was more a wish-fulfillment ("wouldn't it be awesome if my dad ran a candy factory!") dream dad.

It probably would have been better if Burton had just done a completely new "Willy Wonka" and not even pretended to "remake" the original, but I guess the movie studio wouldn't go for that kind of thing.
 
2013-06-16 02:11:25 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
So says Doctor "Fronkensteen"
 
2013-06-16 02:18:21 AM
I wonder what Wilder thought of "The Producers" play/movie?

Someone should remake "Blazing Saddles".
 
2013-06-16 02:27:46 AM

Snapper Carr: SpikeStrip: frank baum crawled out of his grave and raped judy garland during the wizard of oz

then he hanged a munchkin.

Wilder's right about Burton. Fantastic visual director but absolutely shiat when it comes to story (and he's admitted as much)


The man wrote Nightmare Before Christmas, so SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH!
Heh.

You're right of course, and I'd give him a pass for NBC^, but the remake of Charlie' really took it too far.

When they made Willy into Michael Jackson, that's where it got all farked up.

I could dig the better visuals, even the cloned oompa's. The old midgets with grease paint just never did it for me, and I usually love midgets, from creepy to funny to uncannily normal.  The whole movie was dated, props to wardrobe, to include the children's acting and poor video quality/lighting.

Wilder's role was the shining gem(and gramps and some of the parents to a lesser extent) in the original film, and they cut the almost evil anti-hero out of it completely and made it about daddy issues and a creepy pedo vibe...just uck.

Never read the actual book or whatever, so maybe it was true to source material, but really, some authors are terrible and sometimes it's OK to improve their work.
 
2013-06-16 02:27:57 AM

Gyrfalcon: Zarquon's Flat Tire: It really was.

I respect the balls it took to even attempt a remake, but it sucked compared to Wilder's version.  He nailed it.

Wilder's Willy Wonka was written and acted so as to be more of a father figure to Charlie (like that wasn't obvious from the git-go); in the book, and Depp's version, he was a more menacing and enigmatic figure. I don't think Wilder's Wonka and Depp's Wonka are even comparable. Depp's is truer to the book in some respects; Wilder's was more a wish-fulfillment ("wouldn't it be awesome if my dad ran a candy factory!") dream dad.

It probably would have been better if Burton had just done a completely new "Willy Wonka" and not even pretended to "remake" the original, but I guess the movie studio wouldn't go for that kind of thing.


I agree completely.  But not everyone reads that book back in elementary school.  The collective memory of Willy Wonka is Gene Wilder's version.

I really have no idea how you would make a new Willy Wonka and NOT take any inspiration from Wilder.  Gene Wilder was more Willy Wonka than Robert Downy Jr. is Tony Stark.
 
2013-06-16 02:38:50 AM
Depp's Wonka is fey. Wilder's Wonka is smart.
 
2013-06-16 03:00:22 AM
Thing is, aside from the additions made my Burton and Depp, the movie was almost a word-for-word adaptation of the book.
 
2013-06-16 03:09:56 AM
I think both movies had their strengths.

Chrisopher Lee as Dr. Wonka the dentist was inspired casting.
 
2013-06-16 03:11:17 AM

angrymacface: Thing is, aside from the additions made my Burton and Depp, the movie was almost a word-for-word adaptation of the book.


Thus proof that not all books translate in to good films when done word for word...the original was much better.

Maybe comic book and epic novel fans should take note of that when they biatch about changes from the source to a movie
 
2013-06-16 03:11:33 AM

angrymacface: Thing is, aside from the additions made my Burton and Depp, the movie was almost a word-for-word adaptation of the book.


Except for what was different, it was the same....

Doesn't your gem of wisdom apply to damn near everything.  May as well say "Same difference".
 
2013-06-16 03:18:50 AM

OhioUGrad: Thus proof that not all books translate in to good films when done word for word...the original was much better.


I disagree.

omeganuepsilon: Except for what was different, it was the same....

Doesn't your gem of wisdom apply to damn near everything.  May as well say "Same difference".


No. The original film was significantly different from the book. The remake was an almost exact adaption, except for two things: an added subplot and a modernization of characterization.

A subtle, but important difference.
 
2013-06-16 03:23:20 AM

OhioUGrad: angrymacface: Thing is, aside from the additions made my Burton and Depp, the movie was almost a word-for-word adaptation of the book.

Thus proof that not all books translate in to good films when done word for word...the original was much better.

Maybe comic book and epic novel fans should take note of that when they biatch about changes from the source to a movie


Yeah I read a Song of Ice and Fire years before Game of Thrones was even a rumor (waited the 6 years for book 4).  Sure there have been changes, but it's a TV show, not a book.  One of my friends biatches whenever anything is different from the page, but there are things you can't film without resorting to a voiceover, which sucks.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report