Willy Wonka vs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
- Thread starter LiveForTheLaunch
- Start date
ciallkennett
Strata Poster
Lain said:
There we go
Mark
Strata Poster
The new one.
In terms of the context of the story. If you have read the book and read it from adult eyes you will see just how dark the story actually is. The irony of it is that all the lessons that the oompa lompas sing about as each child is picked off are all things that Wonka himself is guilty of.
The first film s indeed charming and fun but it never captured the true magic of the book and I was a little dissapointed by it overall. Burtons vision was closer to what I expected and I also enjoyed it much more as a film; irrespective of the book - although it is hard to watch and detach every last connection I have with the book.
My only real critism of Charlie is that once again Burton feels the need to stamp his own style ending on the film which was totally unnecessary. The whole concept of why Wonka is the way he is was simply not needed. Even after that, Charlie is still a much better film....
On a side thought: Burton should soooo tackle The Witches!
In terms of the context of the story. If you have read the book and read it from adult eyes you will see just how dark the story actually is. The irony of it is that all the lessons that the oompa lompas sing about as each child is picked off are all things that Wonka himself is guilty of.
The first film s indeed charming and fun but it never captured the true magic of the book and I was a little dissapointed by it overall. Burtons vision was closer to what I expected and I also enjoyed it much more as a film; irrespective of the book - although it is hard to watch and detach every last connection I have with the book.
My only real critism of Charlie is that once again Burton feels the need to stamp his own style ending on the film which was totally unnecessary. The whole concept of why Wonka is the way he is was simply not needed. Even after that, Charlie is still a much better film....
On a side thought: Burton should soooo tackle The Witches!
I prefer the older but only when its on at Christmas. I'd never watch it any other time of year though, its not that great even.
I didn't like the newer one and I ended up turning it off before the end. Maybe if I had read the book I'd have a clue what was going on but I couldn't be bothered.
I didn't like the newer one and I ended up turning it off before the end. Maybe if I had read the book I'd have a clue what was going on but I couldn't be bothered.
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
That's random.. It's not even a Christmas movie is it?
ciallkennett
Strata Poster
^ They put loads of movies on at Xmas, Taylor. James Bond, Xmas ones...It's just a classic so they put it on for families.
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
^ Oh okay, fair enough, haha.
Also, for people saying the first film isn't dark, I don't really get it. It might not be as dark as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but there are certainly parts of it that seem kind of dark or scary for kids.
Also, for people saying the first film isn't dark, I don't really get it. It might not be as dark as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but there are certainly parts of it that seem kind of dark or scary for kids.
ciallkennett
Strata Poster
^ But if you have read the book, Wonka is a very dark, creepy character. It wasn't portrayed well in the first film and Daul (who was alive at the time) criticised it for him not being dark enough.
Therefore, the new C+TCF is more like what Daul wanted.
Therefore, the new C+TCF is more like what Daul wanted.
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
^ Oh.. I have a book that shows the entire making of the film and it says everyone was really pleased with the way Gene acted as Willy Wonka. I dunno if that is Dahl specifically, but it said everyone was very happy with his wild character.
I'm not saying the second one isn't more true to the book, but as I said before, just because it's true to the book doesn't mean it is better. Have you seen Wizard of Oz, and Return to Oz? It's clear Wizard of Oz is better, but Return to Oz is very true to the book, though it's actually a pile of crap.
I'm not saying the second one isn't more true to the book, but as I said before, just because it's true to the book doesn't mean it is better. Have you seen Wizard of Oz, and Return to Oz? It's clear Wizard of Oz is better, but Return to Oz is very true to the book, though it's actually a pile of crap.
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
^ Hell no.
If you ignore the books, the new one has an annoying cast (I really can't stand Charlie in that one), and as for the sets? Can you even call them sets? They're all computerized! It totally takes away from the magic of the first one, which looked far more realistic. Besides, the boat ride in the second one completely sucks as well.
If you ignore the books, the new one has an annoying cast (I really can't stand Charlie in that one), and as for the sets? Can you even call them sets? They're all computerized! It totally takes away from the magic of the first one, which looked far more realistic. Besides, the boat ride in the second one completely sucks as well.
Rush
Giga Poster
I prefer the newer one by far.
The original left me very underwhelmed. It didn't appeal to me at all and I found it very boring. I had doubts seeing the re-make but I was pleasantly surprised by it. I thought it was far more wacky, better executed and it looked visually better too. Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka was much more as I imagined him to be and much preferred it to Gene Wilder's.
If I saw either one of them on the TV, I would probably sit down and watch Charlie. I wouldn't bother with Willy Wonka.
Hmmm.... I actually fancy watching C+TCF later.
:--D
The original left me very underwhelmed. It didn't appeal to me at all and I found it very boring. I had doubts seeing the re-make but I was pleasantly surprised by it. I thought it was far more wacky, better executed and it looked visually better too. Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka was much more as I imagined him to be and much preferred it to Gene Wilder's.
If I saw either one of them on the TV, I would probably sit down and watch Charlie. I wouldn't bother with Willy Wonka.
Hmmm.... I actually fancy watching C+TCF later.
:--D
Eugh! I wasn't going to get into this, but...
In the original WW, the sets were made of flat cardboard painted to look 3D. Why is that all of a sudden so much better than CGI? FFS, just because you're stupid to fall for a bit of MDF covered in Dulux, it doesn't make it a good film...
In the original WW, the sets were made of flat cardboard painted to look 3D. Why is that all of a sudden so much better than CGI? FFS, just because you're stupid to fall for a bit of MDF covered in Dulux, it doesn't make it a good film...
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
^ Because CGI's are like, totally the lazy way out, and they can enhance a film for sure, but to me, it makes the Chocolate Factory seem more real than in CatCF.
Ollie
CF Legend
^No Taylor. It take it from looking like a childrens nativity set (chocolate themed though ) to looking like an actual chocolate factory that we all imagined when we read the book as little kids.
And how is CGI a lazy way out? If it makes the film look better then why go "Nah we'll make crappy sets instead".
And the sets were real and not computerized. If you watch the behind the scenes stuff you see that they actually made the sets.
Just admit it Taylor, the new one ownz!
) to looking like an actual chocolate factory that we all imagined when we read the book as little kids. And how is CGI a lazy way out? If it makes the film look better then why go "Nah we'll make crappy sets instead".
And the sets were real and not computerized. If you watch the behind the scenes stuff you see that they actually made the sets.
Just admit it Taylor, the new one ownz!