Fan in Chicago Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 It is not home theatre that will kill public theatre, it is the GD people. Manners are at an all time low. 385364[/snapback] My wife was also complaining about constant talking for a movie she saw 2 weeks back. I must admit it is not always bad. As for home theater killing the movie theater experience, I strongly disagree with that. The content will drive the movie theater business. I have a projector, 106" diagonal screen and 5.1 sound in my house but my first run frequency has not gone down one bit. While I cannot make conclusions for the general populace, if people love movies they will go to the theater and not wait for the DVDs. Movies in general this year have been mediocre and I don't just mean the artsy ones. Even the popcorn flicks have been disappointing (Hitchhikers, WOTW). I am into popcorn flicks and have enjoyed (in decreasing order of preference): Batman begins, Sin City, Revenge of the Sith, Wedding Crashers, Charlie, WOTW, Hitchhiker... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 -- this one just struck me the right way. 385388[/snapback] There's a lot of truth there...tastes differ. Some things my dear wife finds hilarous I dutifully give the odd chuckle to in the greater goal of domestic tranquility. She does the same, I'm sure...I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 How was Pete Townshend's cameo? 385407[/snapback] Great, a pedophile with a guest spot in a kid's movie. Now I MUST see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 Hated it. I'm a big Depp fan and really like the orginal but was disappointed in the new version. I know Dahl is a bit dark -- but I thought Depp's Wonka was weird for weird's sake, almost a cardboard character. Michael Jackson to Wilder's (great) Bugs Bunny. I simply didn't care about Wonka, Charlie or the others. With almost no humor you end up thinking that even the bad kids got more than they deserved. Moreover, the kids we're almost non-existant -- even Charlie. They were an afterthought. Other than the beginning and end (outside the factory), the original version's F/X and sets of the factory were much more imaginative than Burton's 80's video game look. It felt fake, not fun. No sense of wonder and excitement. And what's with the cheesy f/x with the ompah loompas? That was terrible. At one point Mike Teevee says "this is pointless" and I was thinking "Yep." I wouldn't say I "hated it." I thought it was okay, but I agree with everything you said. I don't know whether Depp was directed to play it the way he did or whether he was given free reign like in Pirates, but he seemed too childlike to be as sarcastic as he was/should have been. Wilder did a great job in that department. I also thought that the messages were MUCH clearer in the first movie and thought the kids were bumped-off way too quickly, i.e. before I got a chance to hate them. And the music was lousy compared to the original "Oompah, loompah" songs. Last of all, I think that Charlie WAS the hero of the 1st movie as well. It was because he was a good kid that he "won" the factory, just like in this version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Anyone who's a Depp fan MUST see "Secret Garden" - it's the movie that turned me into a Depp fan. AWESOME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoker2Buffalo Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I do not really care for Depp, or Tim Burton, but I really enjoyed this film. The original is a classic, but I don't think it's a very good movie. This one far surpassed the original for me. I loved Depp's portrayl of Wonka, and thought all the kids were great. One of the bests part though has to be the Oompa Loompa song and dance numbers. Danny Elfman's score was absolutely phenomenal. My favorite part is probably where they were on the elevator, and they passed through the office building and Wonka says "Hello, Doris" and the Oompa Loompa is dressed up as a secretary. LOL "You really need to stop mumbling." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 How was Pete Townshend's cameo? 385407[/snapback] Hmmm, didn't see it, IMDB.com doesn't list it, did it happen? Not to my knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Hmmm, didn't see it, IMDB.com doesn't list it, did it happen? Not to my knowledge 385880[/snapback] I missed it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 The author of the story, Roald Dahl (may he RIP), did not like the original movie version of this story and was collaborating on this one when he passed. Just thought I'd throw that out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 Dahl passed away in 1990 ... did it take this long? Maybe his family, or estate was -- as did Suess' for the Grinch movie with Carrey. I think most of the new movie is truer to the book. The difficulty comes in that it is a children's book, very short, very quick read. Anyone who does a screen adaptation needs to add things to it. The book could easily be done in a 30 minute animate show for TV (an hour at tops, if you stick enough commercials in). The original added all the school scenes in -- which only served to provide a cameo for a British actor and highlight Charlie's poverty (which I think was sufficiently highlighted in this movie). The new movie adds the dimension of Willy's dad, which is appropriate for the way in which the character was developed for this adaptation -- is further highlights Charlie as the hero. It's not Willy Wonka saving a family from poverty, it's Charlie teaching a lesson on the importance of family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Dahl passed away in 1990 ... did it take this long? Maybe his family, or estate was -- as did Suess' for the Grinch movie with Carrey. My mistake, you're right of course. Mr Dahl was not happy with the original movie; though based on his book, it took a lot of liberties. It was his widow, Felicity that worked directly with the screenwriter John August on this version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoker2Buffalo Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 It is worth noting that Dahl hated the original so much, that he had in his will that they would never make another movie. It took a lot for his family to be talked into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Anyone who's a Depp fan MUST see "Secret Garden" - it's the movie that turned me into a Depp fan. AWESOME 385712[/snapback] I think you mean "Secret Window". Oddly enough, I put it in the "lousy movies that you like" thread yesterday. There was plenty to not like about that movie, but the acting was great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 The author of the story, Roald Dahl (may he RIP), did not like the original movie version of this story and was collaborating on this one when he passed. Just thought I'd throw that out there. 385990[/snapback] well, Dahl did seem to hate everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 well, Dahl did seem to hate everyone 386107[/snapback] Kinda dark, huh? Good storyteller, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 definetely...i grew up loving his books of stupid interest, one of my elementary school teachers kept calling him "ronald" dahl until one of my classmates asked her where the "n" was in roald Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 I think you mean "Secret Window". Oddly enough, I put it in the "lousy movies that you like" thread yesterday. There was plenty to not like about that movie, but the acting was great. 386074[/snapback] Build up of that movie was good but ultimately a let-down. Also, I guessed the suspense about half way through the movie. Acting was good but did not need someone with Depp's acting skills. My favorites are 'From Hell' followed by 'Sleepy Hollow' & 'Pirates of hte Caribbean' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Dahl passed away in 1990 ... did it take this long? Maybe his family, or estate was -- as did Suess' for the Grinch movie with Carrey. I think most of the new movie is truer to the book. The difficulty comes in that it is a children's book, very short, very quick read. Anyone who does a screen adaptation needs to add things to it. The book could easily be done in a 30 minute animate show for TV (an hour at tops, if you stick enough commercials in). The original added all the school scenes in -- which only served to provide a cameo for a British actor and highlight Charlie's poverty (which I think was sufficiently highlighted in this movie). The new movie adds the dimension of Willy's dad, which is appropriate for the way in which the character was developed for this adaptation -- is further highlights Charlie as the hero. It's not Willy Wonka saving a family from poverty, it's Charlie teaching a lesson on the importance of family. The original movie did a better job of tying everything together. Wonka originally closed-down because others were sending-in spies to steal from him. At the end when Wonka dismisses them for stealing fizzy lifting drinks, Charlie becomes the hero when, despite urging by his grandfather to do so, he refuses to go to Slugworth and give him the everlasting gobstopper. Without doing that, Wonka doesn't save Charlie from anything and lets him go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Great, a pedophile with a guest spot in a kid's movie. Now I MUST see it. 385513[/snapback] Uncle Ernie was just doing research on the net. Ball busting - He wasnt in the flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 The original movie did a better job of tying everything together. Wonka originally closed-down because others were sending-in spies to steal from him. At the end when Wonka dismisses them for stealing fizzy lifting drinks, Charlie becomes the hero when, despite urging by his grandfather to do so, he refuses to go to Slugworth and give him the everlasting gobstopper. Without doing that, Wonka doesn't save Charlie from anything and lets him go. 386428[/snapback] The stealing of the fizzy lifting drink was another add-in by the original movie that wasn't in the book. I would bet that Dahl was upset about tarnishing the Charlie character -- might be one reason why he didn't like the movie. Very rarely does the "hero" of a movie stay untarnished nowadays -- Burton kept Charlie above reproach in his character, tough to do in this day and age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts