Jump to content

(OT) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory


IBTG81

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

×
×
  • Create New...