Wilder: "Wonka Remake Is All About Money"

[LynneSin]

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-06-02/#celeb8

Wilder: "Wonka Remake Is All About Money"
Movie funnyman Gene Wilder has attacked Tim Burton's choice of Johnny Depp to play Willy Wonka in upcoming film Charlie And The Chocolate Factory as a money-making ploy. Wilder, who played Wonka in the original 1971 film Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory, is suspicious of movie moguls' motives for remaking the Roald Dahl fantasy, and sees it as "pointless". He says, "It's all about money. It's just some people sitting around thinking 'How can we make some more money?' Why else would you remake Willy Wonka? I don't see the point of going back and doing it all over again. I like Johnny Depp, and I appreciate that he has said on record that my shoes will be hard to fill. But I don't know how it will all turn out." Despite Wilder's reservations, Burton insists his film will be closer to the original Dahl novel, than Wilder's musical version

______________________________________

Hey Gene, I hate to disappoint you but Tim Burton ISN'T remaking your version 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory', he's making a TRUE version of the book 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' and at least this time Burton is going to stay true to the book. Hell author Roald Dahl rejected your version of Willy Wonka (which isn't even the name of the book).

So as a true fan of the book 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' I've always found the 1972 very lacking. I don't know how good Tim Burton's version will be but if he sticks with the story - hopefully he'll have great success. Because I know there are plenty of us fans of the book who are NOT fans of the 1972 version of the movie. We book fans deserve a real version done for the movies!

[ghostsofgiants]

1. Wait a minute..

Gene Wilder is still alive?! Damn, another addition to my "Celebrities I thought were dead" list.

[bertha katzenengel]

2. Sour grapes. Sad, really. n/t

[thebigidea]

3. as if the original film wasn't about the money

the immortal Peter Cook as Roald Dahl:
"Ronald was a pretty ordinary name and, until I dropped the 'n', nobody took a blind bit of notice."

[bertha katzenengel]

7. "until I dropped the 'n'" LOL. He sure had good taste in women, though:

Helluvan actress, that Patricia Neal:

[tjwmason]

4. More of his narcissitic rant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2005/06/01/ftwilder01.xml

Big dittos for your comment, the film was pretty naff and half the time was simply a Wilder ego-trip. That said, as with all film adaptations of books, I'll wait until it comes out to comment on the new one (but with Johnny Depp at least I can spend the entire time gazing at him).

[LynneSin]

5. I hate to say this - Johnny Depp isn't that great to look at in this movie

I mean, compared to how he looked in the previous flicks, Burton managed to make the normally gorgeous Depp look rather, well Creepy!

[bertha katzenengel]

6. Wonka's a creepy character. Sounds good to me!

[Atlas Mugged]

11. I'm with you...creepy, it is!

I got the queasy feeling Depp used Michael Jackson as the inspiration for this one. Should be interesting. Gotta' love the Coco Chanel hair, too.

[ghostsofgiants]

12. Apparently he use Marilyn Manson as his inspiration actually

I heard he had his trailer plastered with Manson posters and everything.

[Atlas Mugged]

18. Whoa!

How bizarre! Manson was up for, and fighting, for that role. Why didn't Depp just let him have it?

[ghostsofgiants]

21. Interesting, I didn't know that

[Mike Daniels]

28. I'm guessing Manson wasn't initially selected

as the general public may have rejected the movie regardless of whatever other merits it may have still possessed. I also imagine that the the powers that be would have vetoed Depp's suggestion that they pass him over (had he been inclined to make it) and let Manson play the part.

Sorry, but the general public is probably more interested in this movie because of the Burton/Depp combination. I don't think the fact that it's supposed to be truer to the spirit of the book would really drive the attendence figures needed to make this film profitable.

[Debbi801]

19. Even creepy, he is still Johnny Depp.

:P

[DS1]

20. Like I said before - It's Laura Bush

[Left Is Write]

69. Yep. I want to see the movie, and especially Depp's portrayal, but

he's definitely not eye candy in this role.

[supernova]

75. I'm sure it was Johnny's idea

Johnny loves to fool around with his looks in movies and isn't the least bit egotistical about it. In fact, he runs in the opposite direction.

If WW has such a toothy grin, it's because Johnny thought it was right for the character.

I can't wait! :bounce: :popcorn: :bounce: :popcorn:

[jus_the_facts]

8. There was a sequel called 'Charlie and The Glass Elevator'.....

....I was a HUGE Roald Dahl fan as a wee lass...my two most favorite books checked out of the library...can't wait to see this version and to see if anyone'll take interest in the continuation of the tale?! :)

[praxiz]

9. Oooh I remember that one.

That was one funky elevator.

[LynneSin]

10. Roald Dahl wouldn't give the rights to the sequel for the 1972 movie

Roald Dahl was reportedly so angry with the treatment of his book (mainly stemming from the massive rewrite by David Seltzer) that he refused permission for the book's sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, to be filmed. Seltzer had an idea for a new sequel, but legal issues meant that it never got off the ground.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/trivia

[LostinVA]

15. I believe his daughter Ophelia is his literary executor

I do know I read at on time that the person he was putting in charge of his works was someone he trusted, someone he knew wouldn't allow a producer to change his works.

[LostinVA]

14. The Vernacious Knids!!!

[LostinVA]

13. Thank you! Burton even has the Veruca Salt squirrels!

"Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" is a dark book, and not about singing, etc. Depp will be a GREAT Wonka. The first movie is good, but it's not Dahl.

[Shell Beau]

47. I think the movie was better than good.

Children still watch and love that movie, all these years later. It is a classic children's movie. I absolutely love it, and I think Wilder was fantastic in it. No one will be able to top him. Depp is a good candidate though!

[vi5]

16. I'm obviously in the minority here, but I agree with him....

I've never read the book so I don't have some puritanical visions of what the movie should be. But I loved the 1972 version and I still do. The clips and scenes I've watched from the new version seems to have most of the stuff that the 1972 version did. I'm sure there are other minor details from the book that they added but really is it going to add so much that it drastically alters the basig gist of the story? This whole thing just reeks of the same brouha that caused Stephen King to let them re-do the Shining as a TV movie with that dude from Wings.

Am I the only one that remembers Burton's utter failure at a remake of (Oh I'm sorry "Re-imagining") the Planet Of The Apes?

And this is coming from a huge Tim Burton fan. I just think he should make his own movies from his own ideas and sources. Anytime he ventures outside of that (save Pee Wee's Big Adventure" has been a miserable failure.

[LynneSin]

23. Unless you've read the book, you won't understand why we don't like...

..the 1972 movie. Hell, even Roald Dahl hated it.

Although Gene Wilder had a 'dark & mysterious' side to his character, the fricking show tunes ruined the movie. There will be songs in the Burton version but limited only to the Oompas (which in the book they actually did sing some songs but you just read it as poetry).

Of course there will be similiarities between the 2 movies because they are both based on the same book. However, the 1972 scriptwriters took such a turn away from Dahl's book that Dahl not only hated the movie but refused to let them do a sequel on the second book "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator".

Roald Dahl has passed away, but his family now owns the book and has made great care to ensure this books stays with the vision that Roald had.

I'm not trying to be a naysayer to those who love the 1972 movie, but I find those that love that movie either never read the book or read it but didn't think much of it. Yet those who hate the 1972 movies are people like me who adored the book. That's why I get upset when they call the Burton movie a remake of 1972 - it isn't. Burton's intention was to bring the darkness of the book to the screen by stinking true with the book (although I noticed he 'modernized' some of the children. In the book Mike Teavee was a TV addict and according to the website he's a TV/Video Game/Computer addict).

Ooo - someone said they have the squirrels for Burton's movie - that'll be sweet!

[LostinVA]

29. Yes, they have the squirrels! I love the squirrels...

Veruca is a bad nut! Although I like the band "Veruca Salt."

Updating Mike TV makes sense. TV alone isn't a big deal to kids nowadays, but was when we were young, and had three channels, maybe a fuzzy UHF channel or two, and MAYBE PBS sometimes.

[Atlas Mugged]

92. I saw a picture of the squirrels today

while waiting in my surgeons waiting room for THREE FUCKING HOURS. The squirrels are real and trained! No cgi squirrels at all. They crack the nuts and put them on the conveyer belt - I'll pay to see this, alone.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

65. I disagree

I am/was a HUGE Roald Dahl fan. I read his books over and over as a child and was delighted to discover in college that he had actually written a lot of adult fiction (not porno, of course). I also read those stories voraciously.

I've never had any problem with the 1972 movie. And further, I'm not sure I understand what all the complaints are about. Yes, there are some differences from the book, but what movie based on a book hasn't had to make some changes?

And as far as the "purity" of the new version, I read an interview with John August (the screenwriter of the new version) which discussed the fact that he had decided to address Wonka's childhood and father (which is not in the book AT ALL) and even include flashbacks to Wonka as a child. What's that all about?

[vi5]

84. I read the same thing about the childhood stuff about Wonka..

I was under the impression that this was one of those all important things that were in the book but were left out of the '72 movie. Apparently not.

[Shell Beau]

49. You are not alone. I agree with you.

It was perfect the way it was. No need to improve something that can't be improved IMO. Wilder was perfect in his role.

[johnnie]

17. My take

The Wilder movie was "OK" at best, I tried to read the book as a child and it wasn't enough to keep me interested and this movie sounds as about as interesting as the other two.
Wasn't the book a children's book? I asked someone about it recently and they said the book wasn't all that dark (and he is a fan of the books), he said the second book was much darker than the first. Maybe he is wrong.

[Bridget Burke]

22. Well, I never SAW Gene Wilder's version.

I was already too old for kiddie movies. Not a parent, I wasn't exposed that way. Although I'm aware that Roald Dahl isn't your average writer of kiddie lit...

Unless I hear universal bad news, I'll be checking the new one out. Tim Burton's vision is usually worth seeing. And Johnny is even more interesting when he ISN'T so good looking. "Fear & Loathing" made me a total fan!

And Gene Wilder didn't get paid for the earlier movie?

[DeaconBlues]

24. lets hope that Burton's remake of "the Chocolate Factory" is better

than his remake of "The Planet of the Apes." That movie was truly cringe-worthy.


On Edit: I absolutely loved the Wilder version as a kid, and still do, even though I never read the book it was based on. Wilder just seemed to have the right mix of eccentricity and humor for the part. I'm afraid the Burton will just go over the top with the cartoonish darkness, like he always does.

[LynneSin]

26. DAMNIT - It's not a fricking REMAKE!!!

Burton's movie is based on the book NOT the crappyass musical from 1972

:grr:

[LostinVA]

30. Agreed, Lynnesin! This is not a remake

It's the first time ever "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" has been made into a movie. The 1972 movie was a musical based (often very loosely) on the book, but called "Willie Wonka & the Chocolate Factory," and was very different in plot and "air" from the book.

[johnnie]

34. I'm curious

Are the Oompa Loompas going to be pygmies like in the book? The book was/is considered pretty racist. They changed the name of the first movie because "Charlie" was a racist name for white people.
I've heard that Roald Dahl wrote about 60% of the first screenplay also.

[LynneSin]

37. Oompa Loompas

This is the 1972 version:


The only picture I've seen from the 2005 version:


The Oompas were a different race of people and they were shorter in stature. And in the book they did sing but since you're reading you're just told they sing and then you read the words to the lyric. Burton will have the Oompas singing in his movie since it was a part of the book.

[LostinVA]

55. The Oompa Loompas weren't Pygmies

They were short people with long, curly hair and "white" features (as per the book illustrations).

[johnnie]

59. Not according to this

11. The Oompa Loompas in Roald Dahl's book, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", are described as being "Pygmies" which were "imported directly from Africa. They belong to a small tribe of miniature pygmies known as the Oompa Loompas." I guess the question at this point becomes - was this an anti-racist statement on Mr. Dahl's part? or just the opposite? I think the "enslavement" implications are quite clear. Kind of puts a new spin on the story, doesn't it? In some versions of the book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Oompa Loompas look like pygmies but in 1973 a version was released in which the Oompa Loompas were described as "short white hippies." I have a scanned picture from two different publications of the book which shows the two different types of Oompa Loompas. I believe this picture is from Jeremy Tregleown's book on Roald Dahl.

http://www.borg.com/~superman/Facts.html





Maybe you read an updated version of the book.

[LostinVA]

66. No, I have a first printing of the book I got when it first came out

I just checked my shelves and looked at the LOC page. And my illustrations look nothing like either of these scanned images.

[johnnie]

72. According to Wikipedia

"The Oompa Loompas were first featured in Roald Dahl's 1964 children's book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The original book first portrayed Oompa Loompas as black pygmies from "the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle where no white man had been before". After the book's U.S. release, complaints of racism caused Dahl to rewrite the characters as dwarves with "golden-brown hair" and "rosy-white" skin. In the 1971 musical film adaptation, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, the characters were again reinterpreted as orange-skinned, green-haired, and overall similar to the munchkins of 1939's The Wizard of Oz. In the upcoming 2005 adaption, the Oompa-Loompas will be dwarves with short dark hair and bronzed skin, all played by dwarf actor Deep Roy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oompa_Loompa

You have the newer version.

[Susang]

81. I had a 1964 first edition hardcover of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

There were two first edition pressings, a 1964 and a 1967. My brother was given the 1964 one and it was handed down to me. We also had the first edition of The Great Glass Elevator.

They were definitely black pygmies in the book we owned. I had never seen the white Oompa Loompas before today. Weird.

[Lisa]

101. Dahl had a pretty good satirical sense ...

A while ago I went to a talk given by Jim Stanford, who's the economist for the Canadian Auto Workers. He compared the arguments of pro-outsourcing CEOs ("we're doing the people in China a favor by giving them jobs") with quotes from the book, about how grateful and happy the Oompa-Loompas are when Wonka spirits them away from their home and puts them to work in his factory. Afterwards I looked at the book again, and I'm now certain that the sardonic tone wasn't simply put in by Stanford. Dahl has pointed out social inequalities in many of his other works.

[DeaconBlues]

33. er, okay, whatever you say

still, I wouldn't trade the "crappyass musical" for anything Burton has produced in the last two decades.

[Shell Beau]

52. Agreed!

[Shell Beau]

51. I think many children would disagree that

it was crappyass. I certainly disagree. It is my all time favorite kid movie. Nothing will be able to top it, IMO. No one will be able to top Wilder as Wonka. Not even Depp. They can add special effects and whatever else, but I predict the Wilder's version will remian the best. And it is a remake. Just because the original wasn't exactly like the book doesn't mean it wasn't based on it. Most movies don't stay true to the book anyway. And the fact that it was a musical made it all that much better. Most kids sing along to all of the songs!

[LynneSin]

56. I totally disagree

I'm with Roald Dahl & his family on this one. They only approved of Burton's version because he was going to stay true to the book. They hated the Gene Wilder version for how it warped the book

Gene Wilder's version is what it is - a cute movie with fun songs and great product tie-in for Quaker Oats new candy bar. Kids love it because of that. I have no doubt of the appeal of the Gene Wilder movie, it wasn't the book. It was just a fun musical that kids who really weren't into the book loved. And believe me, I saw it when I was a kid after I had read the book - HATED IT!

But this version isn't anything that the 1972 version ever was. The scriptwriters read the book and stuck with the plot line.

It's very feasible for 2 movies to come from the same book and have nothing in common. Personally I keep hoping that someone will finally tackle John Irving's "Prayer for Owen Meany" so we can forget that "Simon Birch" ever existed

[Debi]

86. Agreed

It's very feasible for 2 movies to come from the same book and have nothing in common. Personally I keep hoping that someone will finally tackle John Irving's "Prayer for Owen Meany" so we can forget that "Simon Birch" ever existed

Oh, how right you are! Although I enjoyed Willy Wonka I also liked the book and am looking forward to the movie based on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But Simon Birch was like the Cliff's Notes for A Prayer for Owen Meany, just destroyed what Irving wrote. I didn't see the movie for Ciderhouse Rules, but read the book. After seeing Simon Brich I'm afraid what the movie might look like.

D

[LynneSin]

96. Cider House Rules SUCKED

Although oddly enough Tobey Maguire (Homer) and Michael Caine (Larch) were great choices for their roles, overall I was disappointed in the movie but probably because CHR is my favorite Irving book. They made Candy out to be a little on the Tart side and the romance between her and Homer in the book which was almost forbiddenly ethreal came off as tawdry sex in the movie.

Oddly enough Irving won an Oscar for his screenplay (he was fed up with others brutalizing his books in the movie) and although I hated the movie I was glad to see him win the Oscar just because I'm such an Irving fan and lets face it - no way you can turn an Irving book into a 2 hour movie without butchering it some (Plus Irving made some very vocal pro-choice statements when he won the Oscar cause let's face it - CHR is very pro-choice)

[Left Is Write]

74. No, the new movie is not a remake of the previous movie.

Just because someone else made a movie based on the book first doesn't mean the second movie is "remaking" the first one. It is someone else's vision of the book.

[Shell Beau]

77. But if the first one wasn't so successful,

this one would probably never have been made. So my guess is they made this movie to try to improve the first one. Which IMO can't be done!

[Left Is Write]

80. Not necessarily. To say this was done solely because

of the success of a 33-year-old movie is to completely discount the vision of those who wanted to do this.

[Shell Beau]

87. Maybe, but I am sure the first one had something to do with their vision!

That is just my opinion, but the success of the first one continues to this day.

[Left Is Write]

88. It probably did, but that's the whole point.

It was someone else's vision.

[Shell Beau]

89. I hope that this movie exceeds my expectations.

I will watch it b/c I loved the first so much. It will be neat to see what they can do with the technology we have now a days. I have to say that Johnny Depp is the only actor of today's time that I can see playing Willy Wonka. I really do hope it is a success. But my expectations are pretty high.

[LynneSin]

99. I disagree

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was always a popular book. Like I said, I had first read it before the movie came out along with plenty of other Dahl books (Before and after the movie).

The fact that the screenwriters of Burton's movie have never seen the 1972 version (You can check IMDB on that one), shows that the earlier movie really wasn't much of an influence on today's movie. Dahl has had a sucessful career has a writer of children's book (CATCF was the first big kids book I had ever read) and it's dark enough to appeal to a director like Burton who tends to be on the darker, creepier side.

If Burton wanted to remake the original movie he would have added more song and dance outside of the Oompa Loompas, who actually sang and danced in the original book

[Left Is Write]

70. Exactly. It is NOT a remake of the previous movie.

It's Burton's vision based on the book.

Though I liked Willy Wonka, I would never call the new movie a remake.


Edited typo.

[radwriter0555]

25. It's pathetic that the indies are making great new movies while the studio

freaks can only re-do 40 year old successes. The studios can't be bothered finding ORIGINAL stories.

[LynneSin]

27. and I'll say this to you too - IT'S NOT A REMAKE!!!

Roald Dahl HATED the 1972 movie so much he wouldn't let them make the sequal from the "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator" book.

The Dahl family still owns the book and gave approval to Tim Burton because his script followed what the book did.

Tim Burton is simply making a movie based on the actual book instead of pandering to the audience with lameass musical numbers.

[vi5]

31. That really doesn't make it any less of a remake......

The book was already made into a movie (regardless of what the author thought about it, it was still in every sense of the word a film adaptation of his book).

If they are making the book into a second movie then it is still considered a re-make. As long as a movie version of the book exists, however flawed it may be, then this will be a re-make.

[LynneSin]

35. The 1972 movie doesn't even have the correct name of the book!!

Hell they switched it to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory just so Quaker Oats could do a product tie-in with their new candy line.

So as far as myself, purists of the book, the author Roald Dahl & his family is concern - the 1972 really was never a true version of the book.

[vi5]

60. Hey...

Whatever gets you through the day.

[Shell Beau]

53. You are the only one I have ever heard call it a lame ass musical.

It was genius. It may not have followed the book exactly, but maybe the book needed to be improved. The movie was great and I don't think anything should be changed.

[LynneSin]

97. It probably was a good musical...

...but since I was such a fan of the book and the 1972 movie didn't follow the book much - it became "lameass" in my book

[Susang]

73. Reading comprehension is a gift

Particularly for one who calls themselves a writer. It is not a remake, as so many here on this thread have stated, it is a new movie version of the original source material.

The movie, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" deviated from the book so much that it was condemned by the author, Roald Dahl. This project was endorsed by his estate and does not use the old script or any of the Anthony Newley songs from "Willy Wonka".

[LynneSin]

32. BTW - Gene Wilder is one to talk

I was reading more of the trivia at the IMDB boards. The reason for the name change of the 1972 movie from "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" to "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was so that Quaker Oats could do a product tie-in with their new Wonka Candy Bar line

:grr:

[DeaconBlues]

36. Mmmmmm

those candy bars were delicious

[johnnie]

39. I see a different story

37. Ever wonder why the title was altered from "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" to "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory?" With the Oompa Loompas being changed in the book to be "politically correct" as goes with the title for the movie. I'll quote from Treglown's book, Roald Dahl : A Biography.-- "It was for similar reasons that the title was altered to ' Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory ' --"Charlie" being Afro-American slang for a white man. The change was explained in publicity handouts as reflecting an in fact nonexistent expansion of Wonka's role."

http://www.borg.com/~superman/Facts.html

I don't know if the biography was a good one or not.

[blondeatlast]

38. Wilder has apparently turned into quite the bitter old man lately.

He trashes Gilda in his biography, now this.

Not the way to charm the world, Gene. You had it so good--are you willing to lose the respect of millions, hard earned by appearing in so many of the absolute BEST comedy movies ever made?

Apparently so.

[GreenPartyVoter]

90. He trashed Gilda? In what way?

[Shell Beau]

91. I didn't know he trashed Gilda!

What did he say?

With that aside, he is a great actor. He and Richard Pryor were hysterical together. They made a great duo!

[Richardo]

40. Hopefully he won't tack on an ending at the Lincoln Memorial again

Sculptures of Charlie and Grandpa in the big chair.

[chickenscratching]

41. umm maybe we remake it

because it'll be a true version then? i don't have to hear a bunch of shit songs?

[Shell Beau]

54. The songs are for the kids. I loved the songs as a kid and sang

along just like every other kid did. Look at most children's movies. Most are some sort of musical. All Disney films are!

[LynneSin]

58. EXACTLY

I guess they felt that the movie wouldn't sell in 1972 if they didn't 'Disneyize' the book with fun song & dance.

I don't think Burton is trying to appeal just solely to the kids. He knows there are adults, like myself, who grew up with this book and loved the darkness to the story.

[DeaconBlues]

62. Hell, I still love the songs

especially Veruca's "I want it now!" song. She would have made a fine republican.

[Shell Beau]

76. I loved the song

when they walked into the candy land:

If you want to view paradise,
simply look around and view it

And also when they were in the boat in the chocolate river:

I have no earthly way of knowing
Which direction we are going

[DeaconBlues]

82. yep, two great songs

and the image of the chicken getting its head cut off during the boat ride - what a freak-out

[ScreamingMeemie]

42. Bite ME Gene Wilder...I never liked your movie and was really upset

about it after I read the book. So there.

[LynneSin]

46. Wow we agree on something!

:bounce:

bout time!

[ScreamingMeemie]

64. It was bound to happen someday!

:pals:

[ghostsofgiants]

43. I find it hard to believe I'm the only one who thought Wilder was dead

[Shell Beau]

44. Well I have to agree with Wilder.

To me that is a legendary film. I don't think anyone can fill his shoes as Willy Wonka. Although, Depp is probably the only one who could come close. I will watch the new movie. I am sure the special effects will be good. But why fix something that isn't broken!

[LynneSin]

45. IT'S NOT A FRICKING REMAKE OF GENE WILDERS MOVIE!!!

Gene's movie BUTCHERED the original book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" by Roald Dahl. Hell they didn't even call Gene's movie by the same name as the book because they wanted to do promo tie-ins with Quaker Oat's new Wonka Candy Line.

Outside of the Oompa Loompas there was no song and dance. And The OL songs were more like dirges warning children about bad things like chewing gum, being spoiled and too much TV.

Roald Dahl HATED the 1972 movie and you'll find most book purists like myself agree with Dahl. That is why you never saw a sequal with "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator" because Dahl refused to give them the rights.

1972 was a cute musical but sucked because it warped a truly amazing & decadant kids book.

So believe me, this new movie isn't "Fixing something that ain't broken" because the 1972 was a warped, fucked up movie when compared to the book it was suppose to be based upon. Tim Burton just wants to give us CATCF fans a true version of the book brought to life.

[Shell Beau]

57. It is a remake. The first was legendary!

No need to improve it because it can't be made better IMO! They changed some of it...So what? They do that all the time. It obviously worked for them. Children loved it as did adults. It is still played on TV almost on a daily basis on different channels. And since I worked with children for 6 years, I can attest to the fact that they love love the movie and could care less how it came about. I've read the book, and I liked the movie better and Gene Wilder was perfect in his role. No one will top it. If the first movie wasn't so successful, this movie wouldn't have been made.

[StopTheMorans]

85. note to self: take anti-anxiety meds before posting on DU

[Coventina]

48. Have to confess, never read the book...but

when I saw the original movie (Wilder's) as a kid it traumatized me so much that I never will, nor will I see the remake.

I hate bratty kids as much as the next person, but I don't believe they deserve the death penalty.

I think it's a horrible message.

:puke:

[LynneSin]

50. In the book they don't die - they just have bad things happen to them...

but they were already bad kids to begin with

[DeaconBlues]

61. in the 1972 movie, I know there were hints that the kids were killed

(Varuca down to the furnace, for instance), but didn't Wonka at the end of the movie say that the kids were merely sent home? It seems to me that the Wonka character spooked the kids and weeded them out to find his replacement, but the kids were not actually harmed in the end. I could be wrong, though.

[Shell Beau]

78. The kids didn't die. You are right!

[Deja Q]

63. Well, I will now actively tell people NOT to see it. Greedy bastard can

rot.

Money before creativity. That's why remakes are made. But for someone to have the gall to say it openly like wilder had... :mad:

Also, they're remaking "War of the Worlds" being truer to the book too. People still aren't happy and I can't entirely blame them. We need to make NEW CREATIVE THINGS. Not rehash old ones becase it'll bring in quick money.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. They Already Remade War Of The Worlds

They called it Independence Day. Same movie. Hostile aliens attack without provocation. All hope is lost. Clever scientist as central character. Aliens die because of a virus. Ok a different kind of virus, but still same movie.
The Professor

[mondo joe]

94. "creative new things"? But the first movie was an adaptation of existing

material.

Wilder's version was no more original than Depp's.

They're both interpretations of the same source, just like all those theaters doing Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams even though they've been done before.

[LynneSin]

98. Wait, you're saying Wilder is right?

You do know the reason why they changed the name of the 1972 movie from the book name of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" to it's actual title of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was so Quaker Oats could use the 1972 movie as a tie-in for it's new candy line of Wonka bars.

That's about as commericial as you'll ever get! Plus the fact that they turned the movie into a musical so they could 'Disneyize' it and make it appeal more to kids.

Wilder was way off base!

[KittyWampus]

68. When You're A Professional Artist Your Projects ARE About Money.

some artists need to get over that fact and admit it.

[redqueen]

71. Someone isn't handling borderline obscurity very well.

So kids will remember Depp as Wonka and not him... geez after such a long career you'd think he'd have developed a modicum of grace.

[grace0418]

79. That really pisses me off

Where does Wilder get off? LynneSin I could not agree with you more. I read that book (and Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator) sooooooo many times and the Gene Wilder movie couldn't hold a candle to the book.

[Twillig]

83. Remake,Remake, Remake, Remake!

So it's not a remake.

I don't understand why die hard fans of a book would want a movie. They(movies from books) never measure up to what the reader has created in their head.

Books are always better than the movies. Except for Jaws, of course.

Good luck. If the movie sucks maybe Depp can shoot Burton out of that cannon with HST's remains. He damn near deserves it for that POS PoA remake.

[LynneSin]

100. Actually, you have a point

There are few movies from books that I can say I really like. Makes me nervous for "The DaVinci Code" and "Memoirs of a Geisha"

[mondo joe]

93. It's not as if they're remaking an original like Young Frankenstein.

Wilder and others were involved in ONE interpretation of original material - and for money, I might add.

Burton is doing another.

It's also not as if they're remaking Frisco Kid or any other Wilder loser of a movie.

[elperromagico]

95. Pretty much all Hollywood movies are "all about money."

No surprise there.