I’m pretty sure I saw a flash of Johnny Depp in a jungle in there somewhere, so I would assume they’re addressing the Oompa Loompa backstory.
The original book described the Oompa-Loompas as being dark skinned. I remember Charlie speculating that “Mr. Wonka made them himself out of chocolate.” I wish I still had my original copy.
If the IMDb is to be trusted, the screenwriter for this film had never seen the 1971 film. After he finished the script, he viewed the 1971 film and was surprised at how much darker it was than his own. I really hope that this isn’t true; I, too, am looking forward to a dark Tim Burton treatment.
My copy is from 1973 and has the pale-skined Oompa-Loompas with the golden brown hair. I think the first version I read way back in the late '60s had the black Oompa-Loompas, though. I even remember a picture of an Oompa-Loompa looking like a stereotypical pygmy. I don’t know if I’m remembering aright, though.
As for the movie – I’m on the fence. It looks fairly true to the book, at least in so far as I could see from the trailer. The earlier scenes in the Bucket house look dull and dim, which is right. And the factory is supposed to be bright, not dark, so I’m cool with that. Depp looks like a cross between Isabella Rossellini and the Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange. Not exactly like my mental picture of Willie Wonka – which I got from the book, not the previous movie (which I’ve only seen once). My mental picture of Willie includes a little pointed beard which Depp is lacking. I’ll have to see it to make a call, I guess.
I have reservations…but, on the other hand, there’s just not enough information and too much editing to make any kind of judgement.
Yes, I know it’s a trailor, but I’ll wait for the reviews on this.
Still no Mr. Bucket, but they’ve added Willy Wonka’s father. Hmmm…
Johnny Depp? I call shenanigans on that, I think it is in fact Michelle Forbes.
Looks kinda twisted, but not very twisted. We’ll see what happens.
Just because he’s weird-looking and creepy doesn’t mean he can act, though.
Er, does Johnny Depp look creepily like Michael Jackson in this trailer, or is it just me?
“Darker” might be subjective. Some of the psych-out stuff that originated with the 1971 film is surprisingly f-d up, even for people raised on Dahl. That repeated insert of the chicken getting its head cut off during the Tunnel of Terror sequence is pretty damned dark, for instance, and might seem a bit over-the-top to someone who was sticking to the text.
I like Johnny Depp, but I wonder if he’s a good choice for this. My main complaint with Gene Wilder was that he was too young for the role.
Wonka should be a skinny, unkempt old man who’s inexplicably spry.
He should, in fact, look just like this, but in a particoloured suit and a tall hat.
Still, I’m really looking forward to this. I think Tim Burton is the man to do Dahl. Oh yeah.
The 1971 version has been my favorite movie since I was born (1985). I loved the book too. When I heard that they were going to do a remake I was 
. But after I heard that Johnny Depp was going to be Wonka, I thought that there was hope. I know that Depp’s performance will probably be stellar enough to salvage even the cheeriest version of the movie (something that I’m hoping against), but so much of the book has to do with the peripheral characters that I’m not sure if the movie will turn out to be as wonderful as I’m hoping for.
I will see it, regardless of what the critics say. I really think that between Burton and Depp, there is definite hope of a great flick.
I love Dahl too and the '71 film is my all-time favorite. However, I cannot live without Johnny Depp 
and Tim Burton has done some truly amazingly creative and beautiful work. I like almost all of his stuff (except the ape remark – oy vey!), with NBC being tops.
That said, I can’t wait to see it and judge it on its own merits. I have no problem with someone attempting another vision, just as long as it’s not a total waste. the unnecessary and senseless Psycho of 1998 anyone? So, July '05 is just too far away. I want my twisted-to-whatever-degree interpretation now.
And Johnny nude.
Did I say that last part out loud?
Point.
This sums up my feelings on it. I didn’t realize that the original film dated back to 1971, but that’s probably because it just doesn’t feel old. I really wish people wouldn’t do stuff like this.
I was fine with the cartoon Grinch. I was happy with the LotR books. I’m perfectly content with the original Star Wars, and the Hitchhiker’s Guide books and BBC series.
Damnit, Hollywood, leave my childhood memories alone! :mad:
Hm…I dunno. Gene Wilder is Willie Wonka to me, and yet, I adore Depp, and if anyone can pull off the role well enough to even remotely compare, it’d be him, IMO.
But still…I dunno. Gene Wilder wasn’t creepy in alot of his other roles, which is part of why I thought he was so creepy and eerie in his Wonka role, but Depp’s really good at creepy, ethereal, eerie, etc. normally.
I’ll definitely be seeing it either way. 
The first movie sucked horribly. It was a disgrace to the book, and in my mind is just a totally different story. And a bad story at that.
The first time I saw the new trailer (early yesterday), I thought Johnny Depp looked pretty freaky. But after viewing it several times, I’m thinking this might be good. I’m looking forward to seeing it. Tim Burton, Danny Elfman, Jonny Depp, how can you go wrong? Oh, and Christopher Lee too as Willy Wonka’s father.
That music in the trailer is pretty catchy. “Let’s Boogie!”
I enjoyed the book when I was a kid, I hated the Gene Wilder movie, and I’m looking forward to this due to Depp, Burton, and Danny Elfman.
However, I think that Christopher Walken would have been the absolute best choice to play Willy Wonka. Not only is he creepy and incredibly charismatic at the same time, he’s also a real song-and-dance man.
I loved the book as a kid and thought the 1971 movie was a piece of lightweight fluff, so I’m all for Burton to remake it. He’s made his share of duds, but when he’s on (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Big Fish) he’s capable of very special work.
I won’t judge this movie on the basis of a brief teaser. I learned not to do that after skipping Fargo during its theatrical run because of its horrendous trailer only to be blown away by it when I rented it on home video. Some great movies have awful trailers, some lousy movies have excellent ones.
Which means me grateful for the existence of the SDMB. Get 30 Dopers in a thread talking about a movie, and you’ve got a pretty good idea of its strengths and weaknesses.
Me? I liked Wilder but the special effects are pretty cheezy (as you would expect for '71). I’m looking forward to this one.
Besides, even if it’s a wretched version, it won’t affect the books. The evil “Grinch” and “Cat in the Hat” won’t do Seuss one iota of harm, and multiple versions of a work ensures that it retains some validity in the culture. New versions of Shakespeare’s plays keep him alive in a way that Beaumont and Fletcher and Ben Jonson are not. So, welcome the remake, because therein lies immortality.