IBTG81 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I went to go see Ocean's Twelve with my GF this past weekend, and a trailer for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came on. Johnny Depp is playing Willy Wonka, and Tim Burton is directing. All I can say is WOW! The movie looks absolutely amazing and very "Tim Burton-esque". It comes out in July I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 one of the creepiest movies of all time is the orignal version of that film... the tunnel scene will haunt me till im gone... "is it raining, is it snowing, is a hurricane a blowing?" there are so many little facts that are cool about that movie.. The kid who plays charlie bucket? That is his only acting role - EVER. He later became a veterinarian The combination to the first door in the chocloate factory is 99-44/100% pure, which was an ad slogan for Ivory Soap As the movie was filmed in Munich, Germany, many of the people cast as Oompaloompas were native to Germany or other European countries and therefore did not speak English fluently, if at all. This is why some appear to not know the words to songs during the musical numbers. The reactions of the actors in some scenes are spontaneous. For example, when the children first enter the main factory and see the gardens, their reactions are real, it was really their first view of that particular set. Roald Dahl (author of the book) hated the film. Willy Wonka's summersault performed at the factory gates was Gene Wilder's idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 Here is the trailer... http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/cha...atefactory.html The movie looks awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 wow. i will definitely go see that next year. Thsi might sound strange, but I will bet it is one of the highest grossing films of 2005. I saw Robert Dalh's name in the credits. I'd be surprised if he had anythign to do with this. He refused to allow the sequel (I believe called the Giant Glass Elevator) to be made into a movie because he hated the first so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 wow. i will definitely go see that next year. Thsi might sound strange, but I will bet it is one of the highest grossing films of 2005. I saw Robert Dalh's name in the credits. I'd be surprised if he had anythign to do with this. He refused to allow the sequel (I believe called the Giant Glass Elevator) to be made into a movie because he hated the first so much 160758[/snapback] I agree with you on one of the highest grossing films. You put Depp into a movie, with Tim Burton, instant Ka-ching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 wow. i will definitely go see that next year. Thsi might sound strange, but I will bet it is one of the highest grossing films of 2005. I saw Robert Dalh's name in the credits. I'd be surprised if he had anythign to do with this. He refused to allow the sequel (I believe called the Giant Glass Elevator) to be made into a movie because he hated the first so much 160758[/snapback] Dahl was big in the making of this movie. That's a big reason why it was made in the first place - Dahl wanted a movie that was truer to the spirit of the book. He didn't like how the first one was a kids musical and he believed that it should have been a bit creepier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Roald Dahl died in 1990. The only thing he had to do with this movie was writing the book. Maybe he wanted another version made, but he certainly didn't work on this. It should also be noted that the first movie is entitled "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", this version is named after the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I don't see why Hollywood has to remake everything...I think Burton's going to screw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over... Depp also somehow makes Wonka into a homosexual in the trailer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 I don't see why Hollywood has to remake everything...I think Burton's going to screw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over...Depp also somehow makes Wonka into a homosexual in the trailer 160777[/snapback] How did you think Depp was making WW gay? I didn't see it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 the preview looks like the typical burton design. and anyways some remakes are pretty good and even spawn sequels (eg. ocean's 11, 12) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 That trailer looks horrible. It looks more like they remade Cat in the Hat...no way it comes close to being the classic the original was. Tim Burton ruined Batman so I'm not suprised it looks so goofy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 i gotta say, after watching the trailer, johnny depp scares me in that role...something about him just isnt right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Roald Dahl died in 1990. The only thing he had to do with this movie was writing the book. Maybe he wanted another version made, but he certainly didn't work on this. It should also be noted that the first movie is entitled "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", this version is named after the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". 160774[/snapback] That's what I meant. Notice I didn't say he worked on the flick. But his displeasure over the first was a driving force behind Burton's vision and his idea to stick true to the source material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Man, some of you need to get a grip on reality here. This is all fantasy and thinking that it's somehow promoting an alternative lifestyle is silly and dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I've seen that trailer, and it does look like Tim Burton made it. Thats not a bad thing, I look forward to seeing this movie. Johnny Depp does look a bit creepy with all that make-up. I just hope that God-awful music is only in the trailer and not in the movie itself. It'll be a great summer movie season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I think Depp is kind of going for a Michael Jackson type approach to the Wonka character, so observations that he might've looked a bit flamboyant aren't off target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 I've seen that trailer, and it does look like Tim Burton made it. Thats not a bad thing, I look forward to seeing this movie.Johnny Depp does look a bit creepy with all that make-up. I just hope that God-awful music is only in the trailer and not in the movie itself. It'll be a great summer movie season. 160840[/snapback] Danny Elfman did the score for the movie. He's one of the top guys in Hollywood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rastabillz Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I like Jonny Depp but in the trailer he sort of looks like the guy in the "fairy" picture that always pops up on TBD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I really don't think this will be done 100% true to the Dahl book. Why? In the book, the OompaLoompa's were basically small pigmy africans... http://www.roalddahlfans.com/books/charoompa1.gif all of the workers in Willy Wonka's factory are African pygmies. They work for a wage of cacao beans, sing songs that are almost war chants, and allow themselves to be experimented on like laboratory animals. Dahl says about them, "I created a group of little fantasy creatures.... I saw them as charming creatures, whereas the white kids in the books were... most unpleasant. It didn't occur to me that my depiction of the Oompa-Loompas was racist, but it did occur to the NAACP and others.... After listening to the criticisms, I found myself sympathizing with them, which is why I revised the book" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Roald Dahl (author of the book) hated the film. ------------- ------------- Steven King hated Kubrick's version of The Shining. King originally worked on the movie but Kubrick said he was lazy and unmotivated so kicked him off the set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Stojan, You can't have the jugs if you don't like the milk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 That's what I meant. Notice I didn't say he worked on the flick. But his displeasure over the first was a driving force behind Burton's vision and his idea to stick true to the source material. 160812[/snapback] Both my kids and I love James and the Giant Peach. Really cool movie.Wonder if he liked that movie, or if was done after he died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Have you read the original books? Dahl's kids' books have a rels streak of hostility and violence in them--it's what makes them interesting, in my opinion. He does not idealize childhood. So Burton's version is likely to have that aspect too. The best Dahl movies I know of are _James and the Giant Peach_, and _The Witches_. Both of them have that Dahl creepiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 That trailer looks horrible. It looks more like they remade Cat in the Hat...no way it comes close to being the classic the original was. Tim Burton ruined Batman so I'm not suprised it looks so goofy. 160809[/snapback] Tim Burton ruined Batman? His were the only versions that tried to stay true to the late Bob Kane's original Detective Comics version of Batman. Those who were looking for Adam West were disappointed, I guess. Now, I thought Joel Schumacher destroyed the franchise with his brighter, campier versions (Batman Forever and the atrocious Batman and Robin, the only one I do not own in ANY format). I wonder how good Batman Forever would have been had someone else directed it and they were able to land Robin Williams as the Riddler instead of Jim Carrey. His Riddler sucked. He played it more like the Joker, which wasn't what I liked about the Riddler. If you've ever watched the animated Batman series, then you know how awesome the Riddler was. He wasn't silly and goofy at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Wheels Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Just another example of the lack of imagination and creativity in Hollywood. This was already a good book and movie. It's like the wretched movies Hollywood makes based on old tv shows (Flintstones, Beverly Hillbillies, etc.) More regurgitation. I like Depp and Burton, but c'mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Just another example of the lack of imagination and creativity in Hollywood. This was already a good book and movie. It's like the wretched movies Hollywood makes based on old tv shows (Flintstones, Beverly Hillbillies, etc.) More regurgitation. I like Depp and Burton, but c'mon. 161109[/snapback] I agree. As I said before this summer is going to feature the 6th version of a movie that has been made perpetually worse since 1977 (Star Wars), a movie that has been made at least three times since 1990 (Batman), ANOTHER lame ass comic book movie (Fantastic Four) and a movie that was great to begin with but needs to be redone?(Wonka) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Just another example of the lack of imagination and creativity in Hollywood. This was already a good book and movie. It's like the wretched movies Hollywood makes based on old tv shows (Flintstones, Beverly Hillbillies, etc.) More regurgitation. I like Depp and Burton, but c'mon. 161109[/snapback] I'm HOPING that the reason this was remade was to make it a closer representation to the book. That would make it a completly different movie than the first. If not, it will suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I went to go see Ocean's Twelve with my GF this past weekend, and a trailer for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory came on. Johnny Depp is playing Willy Wonka, and Tim Burton is directing. All I can say is WOW! The movie looks absolutely amazing and very "Tim Burton-esque". It comes out in July I believe. 160743[/snapback] how was ocean twelve ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 the preview looks like the typical burton design. and anyways some remakes are pretty good and even spawn sequels (eg. ocean's 11, 12) 160786[/snapback] did you watch Burton's Planet of the Apes? horrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenews Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 how did you and your grandfather like O12? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Tim Burton ruined Batman? His were the only versions that tried to stay true to the late Bob Kane's original Detective Comics version of Batman. Those who were looking for Adam West were disappointed, I guess. Now, I thought Joel Schumacher destroyed the franchise with his brighter, campier versions (Batman Forever and the atrocious Batman and Robin, the only one I do not own in ANY format). I wonder how good Batman Forever would have been had someone else directed it and they were able to land Robin Williams as the Riddler instead of Jim Carrey. His Riddler sucked. He played it more like the Joker, which wasn't what I liked about the Riddler. If you've ever watched the animated Batman series, then you know how awesome the Riddler was. He wasn't silly and goofy at all. 161103[/snapback] Totally agree. Only thing Burton got wrong on his Batman movies was casting Michael Keaton, who to me was totally unbelievable in the role. Schumacher's Batmans were fuggin terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Totally agree. Only thing Burton got wrong on his Batman movies was casting Michael Keaton, who to me was totally unbelievable in the role. Schumacher's Batmans were fuggin terrible. 161635[/snapback] Actually, Gavin, I liked Keaton's performances. In those first two movies, they portrayed Bruce Wayne as socially retarded and utterly dependent on his butler. The fundraiser scene at Wayne Manor in the first Batman movie shows this, as he's misplacing things all around the room like a little kid would and Alfred goes behind him cleaning up his messes. I thought he pulled that off well. Just as it would've been selling out to go campy ala the show from the 60s, it would've been just as bad to have someone play Bruce Wayne as some muscle bound do gooder. It just wasn't what Batman was. That's why I'm looking forward to seeing the next Batman movie, where they'll show him in the early stages of becoming Batman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Actually, Gavin, I liked Keaton's performances. In those first two movies, they portrayed Bruce Wayne as socially retarded and utterly dependent on his butler. The fundraiser scene at Wayne Manor in the first Batman movie shows this, as he's misplacing things all around the room like a little kid would and Alfred goes behind him cleaning up his messes. I thought he pulled that off well. Just as it would've been selling out to go campy ala the show from the 60s, it would've been just as bad to have someone play Bruce Wayne as some muscle bound do gooder. It just wasn't what Batman was. That's why I'm looking forward to seeing the next Batman movie, where they'll show him in the early stages of becoming Batman. 161643[/snapback] It wasn't the acting so much - it was the look. Keaton just doesn't have any physical intimidation whatsoever. I agree that the first BATMAN was a pretty damn good flick if you know the real basis of the character. I really hated the one with the Penguin in it. That was painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeG Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 charlie and the chocolate factory isn't supposed to be a re-make... it is it's own movie, the bad part is that SO many people like the original (myself included), that people will compare it to that version and may not like it. As for the comments about the BATMAN movies... Burton's first version (1989) was the best of the Batman movies but in NO WAY does that make it a great version of Batman. There are many aspects to that movie that are great, but many are horrible and are NOT true to the comics at all. The new Batman movie, BATMAN BEGINS, looks to be a good version, although I'm sure there will be many aspects that miss the mark. BUT I can't wait for BATMAN BEGINS... if you want to see a good version of BATMAN on "film" find the movie short called BATMAN: DEAD END... many "fan" films are better than the crap hollywood is churning out... go to theforce.net fan films (non-star wars) to check out some of them... or superherohype.com to find links to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayg Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Rachmaninov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 It wasn't the acting so much - it was the look. Keaton just doesn't have any physical intimidation whatsoever. I agree that the first BATMAN was a pretty damn good flick if you know the real basis of the character. I really hated the one with the Penguin in it. That was painful. 161647[/snapback] I thought that was the point though...Keaton's completely non-threatening physicality as contrasted to Batman's threatening edginess highlighted the whole inner conflict Bruce Wayne feels between his real persona and alter ego. Now that I think back (it's been a while since I saw it), the entire movie was set up to highlight that, right down to the colors and lighting. And how people can complain about Michael Keaton cast as Batman is beyond me, considering they cast Val Kilmer in a sequel. Kilmer as a goofy brain in "Real Genius"...I buy it. Kilmer as Batman???? Please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeG Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Keaton was the best Batman cast out of those movies.... would have liked to see a suit that let Batman turned his head though, and then theres....oh, I could go on and on about the "bad" things about all of them, but many of them you know and the things you don't realize will be lost unless you are a comic fan... so I won't... is anyone a comic fan here? collect any? anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 charlie and the chocolate factory isn't supposed to be a re-make... it is it's own movie, the bad part is that SO many people like the original (myself included), that people will compare it to that version and may not like it. As for the comments about the BATMAN movies... Burton's first version (1989) was the best of the Batman movies but in NO WAY does that make it a great version of Batman. There are many aspects to that movie that are great, but many are horrible and are NOT true to the comics at all. The new Batman movie, BATMAN BEGINS, looks to be a good version, although I'm sure there will be many aspects that miss the mark. BUT I can't wait for BATMAN BEGINS... if you want to see a good version of BATMAN on "film" find the movie short called BATMAN: DEAD END... many "fan" films are better than the crap hollywood is churning out... go to theforce.net fan films (non-star wars) to check out some of them... or superherohype.com to find links to them. 161657[/snapback] The 'Charlie' remake looks to be another example of trying to get closer to the author's vision, like when they did that TV miniseries version of 'The Shining'. In regards to the Batman movie, I think they did about as accurate a Batman that they could and still cash in at the box office. The Detective Comics Batman is even darker and more violent than the Tim Burton movies, but then how do you sell that to younger audiences? I think it was a compromise with Burton and Bob Kane, who gave his seal of approval of it and even had a minor part in the first Batman movie. Kane got to see a darker version of Batman, unlike the 60's TV show that many remember and love (myself included, I admit) and Warner Bros. got a movie they could still sell to younger audiences, allowing for the merchandising cash cow to rake in the dough for everyone. I'll bet Jack Nicholson, who had that ridiculous percentage deal in lieu of a salary, was quite happy at how it turned out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 how was ocean twelve ? 161115[/snapback] I'm a big George Clooney fan, so I'm a bit biased. I liked the movie, though it wasn't as good as the first one. There is a scene with Julia Roberts that is hysterical. I also thought Matt Damon was excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 how did you and your grandfather like O12? 161628[/snapback] Girlfriend, not grandfather. Look in the above post. I recommend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts