You’re faulting the wrong movie for that.
A gobstopper is, by definition, a big-assed sweet. Gob=mouth. Stopper=plug.
This is not a fecking gobstopper. What kind of a gob can you stop up with that puny little thing?
It’s suitable for a child’s mouth. It’s also cool-looking.
That’s as may be, but when the story calls for a gobstopper, you expect to see, you know, a gobstopper.
Would you prefer a version of Silence of the Lambs that showed Hannibal Lector consuming a human liver with kidney beans and a glass of stout, while describing it as “fava beans and a nice chianti,” on the grounds that kidney beans and stout are more nourishing? 
I completely agree that 1971 is the master and this a pretender, but it had its moments. NOBODY will ever sing the Oompa Loompa songs from this even if they were in the book, but in 2025 you’ll be able to sing
What do you do when your kid is a brat?
and millions will still be able to sing the next line. Nothing in this movie came anywhere close to Gene Wilder’s demented “now would be a good time for him to learn” or hysterically passionless “no.wait.stop.” deliveries. All in all, a totally pointless remake where there were no real surprises because you knew the fate of each kid, and the Father Wonka sideplot could have been left on the cutting room floor without hurting the movie whatsoever. And Mudd touched on something that was a major flaw to me: the family’s poverty, while visually cool, was just ridiculous and cartoonish- nobody lives in a house at an angle like that with no roof, but the first movie the poverty was still fit for a children’s movie but at the same time believable.
Still, there were moments. Depp was great, he just tried so hard to steer clear of Wilder to reinvent the character that it was just OTT weird. And this was clever, but…
Of course one major flaw is that the 1971 version has held up so well. It’s still not dated, and therefore just doesn’t need a remake. Personally I’d have spent $80 million to remake a movie that is outdated- Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, for instance, or even The Wizard of Oz (there’s one where CGI could really go to town, though I’d insist on using a live Garrett Morris for the flying monkeys ala Deep Roy [who I still maintain deserves an Oscar nod, 'cause while it’s not his fault that the older songs will hold up better, he had to do LOTS AND LOTS of acting in this, probably more than any other star of the movie).
This is the right word for what you seem to be going for. Between this and the Coffee/Tea thread, you’re giving the impression that you really want to convince others that their personal preference is faulty. Maybe it’s just me, but there’s something in the tone of these posts that crosses the line from “this is why I prefer x” to “I prefer x, and this is why I’m right and you’re wrong”.
Just letting you know.
I haven’t seen Charlie and the Chocolate Factory yet, and probably won’t for some time, because I live in Japan, but after reading this thread I feel that I have to make this comment.
I’ve stated in previous threads that I didn’t like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, largely because it made some drastic changes from the original book (Slugworth, depressive Oompa Loompas, etc.). Now, I’ve found a new reason for my dislike: In the minds of many, the movie has supplanted the book as the “original” story!
Now, the producers of the new movie did their best to make everyone aware that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was not based on the earlier film, and would go back to the book for its story. And yet, here and in many other places on the web, I see people complaining about scenes and subplots from the first movie (like the aforementioned Slugworth industrial espionage) not being in the second!
AARRGH!
Rob
(that’s funny, I wasn’t irrational when I went to sleep last night. I wonder what happened)
I don’t see this as a flaw at all. I love the Gene Wilder version. I’ve seen it in the theatre as a kid and an adult, and on video a couple times. I’m sure I’ll watch it again before long.
That doesn’t alter how much I’m looking forward to seeing a different take on a book I love, though. The 1971 has so much original stuff in it. The 2006 version no doubt has a bunch of original stuff in it. So they have a common source.
Personally, I think The Wizard of Oz has held up just as well (if not even better) than Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory – I think If I Only Had a Brain ages better than The Candyman, the art design is knock-out, the dance routines are fantastic, and the entire ensemble delivered timeless performances. That doesn’t make it the “definitive” Wizard of Oz, though, and I’d love to see, say, Peter Jackson’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, even though I’ll still sit down in front of the Victor Fleming version every couple of years.
The Oompa Loompa songs.
The squirrels.
The backstory of the Oompa Loompas.
Mr. Bucket’s toothpaste-cap screwing job.
Mr. Bucket.
The pink candy boat.
The egg which hatches into a candy bird.
And yeah, the mechanical arms didn’t look like in a real factory (the bars being floated down by BALLOON?), but it had a very “Rube Goldberg” feel to it, and it worked, for me.
I didn’t really enjoy the flashbacks to his childhood or the extended ending (felt like it went on FAR too long for my tastes).
As far as the kids go, I think they were downplayed a lot more in this movie than in '71. The '71 kids are a lot more memorable (to me, at least…and I wasn’t even born then) if only because it seemed like they had more lines.
The 1971 version was about three songs away from being a musical. This one…wasn’t. Despite that they’re based on the same book, I think they’re both different enough to stand on their own merits (and fall on their own failings).
A couple things I missed from the '71 movie were all of Wilder’s zingers back to the kids: “Spitting’s a nasty habit,” “I know a worse one.” “I’m sorry, all questions must be submitted in writing,” “You’ll have to speak up next time, I’m a little deaf in my left ear,” and so on. In this one, Depp told Mike Teevee he was mumbling how many times, like four or five?
I also missed the character of Charlie’s teacher.
I forgot a couple things.
I also liked that this movie showed the consequences of the children’s misdeeds. The first one didn’t.
The character of Mike Teevee, while not completely true to the book, was a good update, IMO. He plays it like your resident know-it-all, instead of a couch potato. The Wikipedia article also states that he dresses like someone who shops at Hot Topic, instead of wearing the cowboy costume. Although I can’t quite figure out why, I think it was a good change.
Well, are you arguing that there shouldn’t be any movie made from a book because “there ‘are’ no real surprises because you know the fate of each…” character? :rolleyes:
Seems to me that by your definition the 1971 version is equally as pointless as the new one and equally as pointless as any other movie made from non-original material (Godfather, South Pacific, Bridge on the River Kwai, etc etc etc etc etc.)
I’ve got no interest in refutations or arguments: Willy Wonka knows better than anyone that there’s no arguing about taste.
A couple of comments:
-In the book, Mr. Bucket is definitely a toothpaste-cap-screwer-onner. He lost his job because the toothpaste factory “went bust.” (I’ve got the book in my lap–I’m not any Charlie expert 
).
-Violet’s hometown is not mentioned, at least not in the initial scene of her introduction; I don’t know if it’s mentioned elsewhere. However, she doesn’t live in a mansion: see below. In addition to being a gum-chewer in the book, she’s got two faults in the introduction scene: she insults her mother on national television (“My mother says it’s not ladylike andit looks ugly to see a girl’s jaws going up and down like mine do all the time, but I don’t agree. And who’s she to criticize, anyway, because if you ask me, I’d say that her jaws are going up and down almost as much as mine are just from yelling at me every minute of the day.”) And she describes her habit of putting gum on the button on the elevator on the way home from school, so that other people will press the button and get her gum on their finger (meaning she lives in a building with an elevator which is used by strangers).
-Mike Teavee’s conversion to a modern kid is beautifully done; the FPS that he’s playing is pure genius.
-Part of why the original boat scene was so creepy was the poem that Willy Wonka recited–“There’s not earthly way of knowing which direction they are going!” and so forth. This poem is in the book, and it’s wonderful, but for some reason, Burton left it out, leaving only the first line intact. Bad call, in my opinion.
-Despite the original illustrations for the Oompa Loompas, in the book they are not black:
Granted, they’re a tribe from the jungle, and prior to Gloop’s song they “suddenly began hopping and dancing about and beating wildly upon a number of very small drums,” and there’s certainly a strong whiff of paternalistic colonialism about them. Nevertheless, that whiff is contradicted by the skin color. I think it’s an interesting choice to darken their skin for the movie; I don’t entirely know what I think of that.
-As closely as they stuck to the dialogue in the book, I think they would’ve benefited from staying even closer. Remember the hair toffee sequence, in which one of the kids asks “who wants a beard?” In the book, it’s Veruca who asks, and the response is:
Compare this to the movie’s answer, in which he rattles off “beatniks, bikers,” and so forth and launches into a sixties-hippie pastiche. It’s kinda funny, but not as madcap as Dahl’s original, I think.
Overall, I spent a helluva lot of last night laughing. I really, really enjoyed the movie, and will be recommending it a lot.
Daniel
According to Roalddahlfans.com, They were originally written as:
(source)
They were also illustrated that way. Note that this is a second-hand account (a biography citing the original).
Additionally, I just discovered this cited essay hosted on the same site, the first part of which deals with the change.
Thanks, Garfield–that’s fascinating! My edition of the book is the 1973 one, so I was completely unaware of the original.
Daniel
My overall impression: meh. There were a few neat things in this version, but most of the changes weren’t for the better, in my opinion.
Some of the things I liked in this version:
[ul]
[li]Charlie’s decision to sell the ticket, which was probably the most believable thing about the Buckets’ otherwish cartoonish poverty[/li][li]Grandpa George and Grandma Georgina[/li][li]Mike Teevee. The angry straightman is an interesting angle for the character, though, since he doesn’t like chocolate and it’s established that he’s pretty damned good at playing international markets (he somehow figures out how to locate a ticket before buying any bars; I think they mention he buys it in Japan), I wonder why he didn’t just sell the ticket for tons of cash[/li][li]The burning puppet song. This is the only song I enjoyed.[/li][/ul]
On the other hand, there was a lot I wasn’t particularly fond of:
[ul]
[li]The most important thing: I don’t like Depp’s version of Wonka. Whereas Wilder’s Wonka is eccentric and witty, Depp’s Wonka is childish and silly. Compare each version’s response to being mocked.[/li][list][li]From the '71 version:[/li]Veruca asks, “Snozzberries? Who’s ever heard of a Snozzberry?”
Wonka rather sternly grabs her lower jaw and replies, “We are the music-makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams.”
[li]From the '05 version:[/li]Mike denounces something Wonka says as being absurd (this happens several times). Wonka replies with something along the lines of “I can’t hear you.”[/ul]
[li]The new boat ride isn’t nearly as creepy as the old one. The '71 version’s boat ride alone makes it the “darker” version, in my opinion.[/li][li]The identical Oompa Loompas reminded me too much of the clones in Star Wars.[/li][li]The Oompa Loompa songs were more drawn out and less memorable.[/li][li]Oddly enough, Charlie features more prominently in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory than he does in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.[/li][li]I know it’s an invention of the '71 movie, but I miss the Slugworth plot. In this version, Charlie is the “good” child mostly because he outlasted the others.[/li][li]The whole “Willy’s origin” plot stank out loud. Explaining Willy Wonka’s origin would be like making up an origin story for the Grinch. Oh, wait … :smack: [/li][li]The ending was too drawn out and less satisfying in general.[/li][/list]
There’s more I could say, but I feel like I’d just be nitpicking at this point. Suffice it to say I was underwhelmed.
I wanted to mention something else about the boat ride. Despite the presence of Wonka’s deliciously dark poem, the '71 boat ride was, in my opinion, a major misstep. The trippy psychedelic imagery in it really dates the movie, makes no sense in context, and has nothing to do with the rest of the movie’s tone. It came across like the director had just tried acid for the first time and was like, wow, man, I gotta put this in the movie!
Burton shoulda kept the poem, but otherwise I thought his boat journey was totally superior to the seventies one.
Daniel
I’ve always wondered why the kids are being punished for their parents sins. So Veruca is a spoiled little brat? It’s not as if she could’ve spoiled herself. Mike watched too much TV? Dad could’ve turned the damned thing off. Violet is hypercompetitive? She’s just emulating her mother, a very kid thing to do. And Augustus is fat? Wow… how horrible. :rolleyes:
This was one of my favorite parts of the movie. I think it was to show that Wonka hasn’t had contact with the real world in decades, so that he’s still stuck in that time period and lingo. It worked.
Yeah, that sort of got me, too. Basically, these kids were punished for being kids, and it wasn’t really their fault. I suppose the book was written for children, who tend not to look beyond the immediate behavior of the child, but you’ve got a point here.
Oh, and the opening credits with the weird automation was wonderful. C’mon, man, it’s fantasy. You’re supposed to be seeing the inner workings of Wonka’s brilliantly twisted mind brought to life in these strange machines.
I liked the subplot about the father as well, if only for the fact that Christopher Lee’s presence can only help a movie, no matter what. The newspaper cuttings about the son he hadn’t seen in decades made me tear up just a little.
Yeah, it worked, but I liked the original dialogue more :). Nevertheless, Dahl’s Wonka is a different, far more self-assured, character than Burton’s; as such, it was an important moment of character-building for Burton’s Wonka.
Daniel
I’m with you on this one. The kids in the theater actually ooh’d and ahhh’d at the pink seahorse boat, and they were still talking about it walking out of the theater.
On the other hand, I was their age when our school showed WWATCF, and a week later, some of us were still having nightmares about the boat ride. That poor chicken. 