MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 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. I didn't think that the fizzy lifting drinks subplot was necessary in the original (Wonka could have just sent them away at the end, saying that seeing his office was the prize, or some other trinket), although IIRC, it was the grandfather who suggested trying them, so Charlie was still beyond reproach. I think Dahl might have been pissed that the movie did a better job telling the story than he did. While we're on the Dahl topic and as an aside, my wife and I went to look at a house in one of the nicer areas of our town. I noticed a lot of Roald Dahl books everywhere and thought they were big fans. Later-on I learned they had the same last name and were related. No big deal, just kind of semi-interesting. Unfortunately we didn't like the house, because I would have demanded a signed copy of one of his books as part of the deal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Not sure if this was mentioned but, Roald Dahl absolutely HATED the Gene Wilder version. I noticed that there was a Dahl on the credits as producer? My take is that the new version is closer to the book and would be accepted more by the late author? ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Not sure if this was mentioned but, Roald Dahl absolutely HATED the Gene Wilder version. I noticed that there was a Dahl on the credits as producer? My take is that the new version is closer to the book and would be accepted more by the late author? ??? 386722[/snapback] Sorry... Just reading through the thread... It was mentioned! Haven't seen it yet but, the movie sounds exactly like the way Dahl would have wanted it (if that is possible)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Don't misunderstand me, I love going to the movies. There is something about the whole experience that cannot be duplicated. The huge screen, sound, smell of popcorn, dark muted walls, and overall atmosphere are fantastic - but only if the theatre is not populated with ignorant bastids. talking fighting babies crying at midnight shows sticky floors and seats cell phones ..and it ain't cheap! For the price I want better than "not always bad". 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... 385443[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Don't misunderstand me, I love going to the movies. There is something about the whole experience that cannot be duplicated. The huge screen, sound, smell of popcorn, dark muted walls, and overall atmosphere are fantastic - but only if the theatre is not populated with ignorant bastids. talking fighting babies crying at midnight shows sticky floors and seats cell phones ..and it ain't cheap! For the price I want better than "not always bad". 386942[/snapback] Well stated and fully agree - I have experienced the first four on your list. Luckily I haven't heard cell phones or people talking on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Well stated and fully agree - I have experienced the first four on your list. Luckily I haven't heard cell phones or people talking on them. 387000[/snapback] Don't forget the people who come into a sparsely populated theater and decide to sit DIRECTLY in front of or behind you, either distracting your view or kicking your seat all night. These people are the close cousins of the dudes who walk into a bathroom with a row of empty urinals and decide to take the one right next to yours. WTF is their problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 Don't misunderstand me, I love going to the movies. There is something about the whole experience that cannot be duplicated. The huge screen, sound, smell of popcorn, dark muted walls, and overall atmosphere are fantastic - but only if the theatre is not populated with ignorant bastids. talking fighting babies crying at midnight shows sticky floors and seats cell phones ..and it ain't cheap! For the price I want better than "not always bad". 386942[/snapback] I couldn't get over the fact that someone brought a two year old to the midnight showing of Episode III. TWO YEARS OLD????? MIDNIGHT????? There's something called parental responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 I couldn't get over the fact that someone brought a two year old to the midnight showing of Episode III. TWO YEARS OLD????? MIDNIGHT????? There's something called parental responsibility. 387039[/snapback] Quite often these parents are of the age when they should stilll be WITH their parents, not BE parents. All they are doing is beating the price of a baby sitter and hoping the kid will either fall asleep or annoy someone besides THEM. Coming to Rochacha for a Plate this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBill Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Uncle Ernie was just doing research on the net. Ball busting - He wasnt in the flick. 386439[/snapback] Pete Townshend wasn't Uncle ernie in the movie "Tommy", Keith Moon played the part. (although Townshend did write the song "Fiddle ABout" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts