Mrs. Bucket would be Charlie’s mother.
Oh hell! Finally something I know the answer to and Sauron beats me to it. 
I don’t understand the worship that the Gene Wilder movie gets. Maybe that’s because I read the book many many times as a child, and didn’t see that movie version until recently, but it’s a poor adaptation of the book at best, and not a movie that made much of an impression on me.
And I think the trailers look VERY entertaining. So phbbbhbhbhbt to many of you!
I’ve always been neutral to Burton—I like his stuff, but I’m not wild about it. Johnny Depp is okay in my book, too, though I wouldn’t class him as one of my favorite actors. And as to Gene Wilder and the 1971 film: this is one of my favorite movies of my childhood, and I still love the movie. Gene Wilder, though he’s a definite disconnect with the Willy Wonka of the book both in age and appearance, will always be Willy Wonka to me.
That said, I’m jazzed up about the new version. New versions are always at variance with the originals; if they weren’t, what would be the point of making new versions? The Wolper film departed from the book, so I don’t see why the Burton film shouldn’t. I’ve read that the Burton film is supposed to stick closer to the book, but the stills I’ve seen show the kids bringing one adult along instead of two, like they did in the book, and Depp as Willy Wonka is as different-looking from Dahl’s image as Wilder was. I can understand why a director wouldn’t want to bring more than one adult along to traipse through the factory; that would make for cluttered scenes and far too many characters to manage.
As to the images of Willy Wonka, well… I can’t say I’m put off with the idea, in principle. I loved Wilder as Wonka—he was playful, yet disturbing; whimsical, yet clearly troubled. (Really, the kind of person who would shut down his factory for three years and then remain a recluse for ten just because people were stealing his candy-making secrets would certainly be the sort of person who’s nervous about dealing with the world. Wilder brought that out beautifully.) Depp’s childish Wonka seems like another imagining of the same situation: maybe he’s acting childishly just to cover up the hurt he feels from being threatened by the world? I dunno. I’ll have to see the movie first.
I’ve seen the preview, and while I was a little nervous at first, I’m game, and I’m looking forward to the new picture. One thing that I find encouraging is the posters that were hanging over the upper escalator at the Virgin Megaplex on Thirteenth Street in Manhattan. Each character had their own poster, and the photos tried to capture the essences of the children, it seemed. Augustus looked downright scary, staring at you while wolfing down a Wonka Bar. Violet was blowing a bubble and glaring at you, too, with eyes that made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Veruca had a frosty look on her face that I’m still feeling, and Mike was completely zoned out. (Charlie seemed really cheerful, for the record.) I’m getting a good feeling about it, but I’m not expecting an exact retelling of the book, nor am I expecting anything like the Wolper film. A cast list I saw had a character named “Wilbur Wonka,” who never showed up in the book or the Wolper film, so apparently Burton is taking a few liberties himself.
As to Fred Astaire: I understand he wanted too much money for the role, and that Wolper didn’t want too much star power to drive the movie, anyway. Joel Grey was also considered. Grey certainly meets Dahl’s Wonka physically, and he can do disturbing, but I’m not sure why they didn’t go with him. (Also, the first choice for Mrs. Teavee was Jean Stapleton, and she almost did it, but got an offer to do a new TV show called All in the Family and had to back out.)
The book and the Wolper film were plenty dark, yep, but I’d say the book was darker. The end of the book you saw that Violet, Augustus and Mike were permanently deformed, which was chilling. The movie implied that they’d be restored to their “same old horrible selves.” (Though in the book, Augustus came out far thinner, which would be just as well for him, I guess.) I like the disturbing fairy-tale morality of the book, and I wouldn’t mind seeing Burton use it. You’ll see me first in line for tickets this July 15.
Has anybody else seen the second trailer? I only saw it once and haven’t been able to find it anywhere online. It looked pretty good, though.
I’m a longtime Willy Wonka fan (adored the Gene Wilder version) and I’m willing to give this one a chance. If they do it right, it could be a masterpiece. If they do it wrong–well, I’ve always got Gene’s version of WW, who was my first childhood love.
Damn I should have known that! (About Mrs. Bucket)
::::::::pinching self::::::::::
You can pretty much count on Carter being in Burton’s movies, since they’ve been an item since 2001 and had a son, Billy, in 2003.
Not that I’m keeping track or anything.
Link, since nobody else has yet.
While the trailer doesn’t look too impressive, I will say that Depp is a very good actor, and he’s certainly capable of doing Wonka well. Yes, he’d be very different than Wilder, and yes, Wilder also did very well, but that doesn’t mean that Depp can’t, too, in a completely different way. So as things stand now, I’m still planning on seeing it, and hoping to enjoy it.
I haven’t seen the trailer. I can understand the producers’ anxiety about the story’s original period setting, but I’m a bit anxious about this “updating”. Does this include Americanizing the story, or just translating it to present-day England?
Either way, much of the pathos of poor Charlie Bucket’s initial plight will likely be lost. The opening of Dahl’s novel dwells almost excessively on the Bucket family’s extreme poverty and senescence during England’s postwar austerity period, which makes Charlie’s windfall all the more miraculous. I suppose the Buckets’ good fortune, rewarded for Charlie’s decency and good cheer, works as a metaphor for the promise of eventual rejuvenation and renewal of long-suffering England’s fortunes – at least for its then-youngest generation.
There’s another texture that will likely suffer in any updating, and that’s the subtextual black comedy behind Wonka’s Oompa-Loompas. As Dahl explained their native predicament and transformation into English candy-factory laborers of uncertain trustworthiness, it plays retrospectively (on a level only an adult is likely to appreciate) as an absurdist, OTT parody of British colonialism and the spoils of empire, even as, IRL, the sun was setting on the British Empire for good. I can’t imagine how Burton & co. will handle this issue. The Oompas are the iceberg upon which any modern version of “Wonka” could easily founder, on either side of the Atlantic, but what with the USA’s lingering pain over its race and slavery issues, it could prove disastrous. And “orangeface” or any rainbow equivalent would be, as the Brits say, right out. :o
Also, does Veruca Salt end up in the furnace, I wonder? 
Hmm, I was thinking of MJ. I won’t be surprised to see WW wearing a sequined glove.
But, but, but.
GW was not true to the Wonka in the book. Wonka NEVER reamed out Charlie the way GW did in the film. I loved the movie (as a child) until that scene–and then they lost me. Wonka would not have treated Grandpa Joe that way–I think it was the director trying to get some tension on film. It was a vehicle to show the “true goodness” of Charlie-- a point that did not need underscoring, IMO.
I have no idea what this new movie will look like, but I am willing to give it a chance.
the best brat in the old film was Veruca–I hope that she is again. Mike TeeVee was pretty good too.
My problem (besides the lack of continuity in Wonka’s character) was the sets and the awful awful makeup on the Oompa-loompa’s. Terrible failure there.
My favorite was always Lamb to the Slaughter.
I don’t remember – in the book, do Charlie and Grandpa ever disobey Wonka? Are there even any fizzy drinks in the book?
I think that in any movie version, if Wonka catches Charlie stealing anything, even if it was at the instigation of his grandfather, then Wonka is obligated to at least chew him out. Otherwise, he’d be playing favorites, and that would subvert the whole purpose of the tour, which is to determine the best scion. Now, if that element of tension poisons their relationship, then it’s best for Charlie & Gramps to refrain from any mischief in the first place. The possible drawback to taking that tack, though, is that Charlie could come across as a goody two-shoes, that the contest would lose what little suspense it could have, and Wonka’s choosing Charlie at the end would be an overly foregone conclusion, with a more one-element Wonka rewarding Charlie for being perfect, but without having to weigh his pros and cons, or be willing to overlook a measure of typical youthful boyishness.
But I could enjoy it either way.
Fizzy drinks are mentioned, but not explored in the book.
I agree with you-changes must be made sometimes in the translation from written to acted stories. In the book, Charlie is on a voyage of discovery–he does not come across as a goody goody. But, in the movie, since we are discovering just like Charlie–there has to be some plot tension. Also, I think they wanted to prolong the drama a bit.
Meh-whatever. It is a classic and as such, deserves respect. Let’s hope that the new one is too.
Having just recently seen Sleepy Hollow for the first time, I can see how Burton and Depp can occasionally misfire, but even that wasn’t a horrible film. Anyone who is unconvinced of Depp’s ability to play a character who is simultaneously unlikable and sympathetic needs to see Once Upon a Time in Mexico. I’m perfectly willing to wait and see how it turns out. I’m hoping that Peter Jackson’s success in pleasing a substantial fan base will inspire better screen treatments of beloved literary classics, like Charlie and Narnia.
A couple of weeks ago AOL’s front page had a little picture on their entertainment page. I looked at it for a couple of seconds and wondered what Claire Danes’ new project was…then realized that it was Johnny Depp as Wonka ::shudders:: Having seen the trailer, I can’t say my initial impression of how he looks has changed. I’m not a fan of the first movie, so the only thing I could see this movie having going for it was Depp’s better looks, but I guess not.
Gene Kelly
As much as I adore Fred Astaire, he wouldabeen so wrong as Willy Wonka. So.very.wrong. First, he can’t dance, can’t act and can barely carry a tune.
I like the updated version of the contest in the Wolper film. In the book, Charlie merely has to outlast the other kids to win. This is kind of a creepy ending, too—good things happen to people if they can just hold out long enough, since we’re all at the whims of an apparently random universe. Sure, it was established that Charlie was a good kid who deserved to win the factory, but you get the feeling that if Wonka had wound up with five rotten kids on that tour, the one rotten kid who hadn’t fallen into the machinery yet would win the grand prize, and where’s the morality in that? In the movie, Charlie actually has to prove himself, which he does. (Mike and Veruca show that they’re willing to sell out Wonka to Slugworth by handing over their Everlasting Gobstoppers. To be perfectly fair, we don’t know for sure if Violet tried to sell hers, too, since she’s whisked off the scene before she drops any hints.)
Dahl worked on the screenplay, from what I understand, though he wasn’t the major contributor. My understanding is that Dahl hated the movie, but I have to respectfully disagree with the author’s sentiment. I think the contest in the movie put Charlie to a welcome test. We see that Charlie is human, and we see that redemption is possible. This appeals to me more. It’s not that I think all movies have to be morality tales; it’s just that I feel Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory works very well as one.
I don’t know if Burton’s going to work in any grander themes, or if those grander themes will work, if he chooses to use them. Since I prefer movies to have more meat to them, I hope he does, and I hope it works out. We’ll see, though.
I know that the first trailer didn’t show any Oompa-Loompas, but does the second one? Is that the ultimate hook they’re using to pull in the waverers?
I just looked through the stills on the imdb page and I was happy to see that they kept the squirrels rather than the mechanized whatsit from the first movie. I loved the squirrel scene in the book. I was so disappointed when it wasn’t in the movie.
Is this a whoosh? Kelly over Astaire for dancing?!? :eek:
No way, no how.
IIRC, Gene Wilder more intoned his songs than sang–something that Astaire could have done.
I see Kelly as to robust and too football quarterback-ish to play Wonka. Also, I didn’t think he could act all that great (or sing) and certainly NOT dance as well.
Ooh-first time I’ve gotten riled in a Cafe thread!