Charlie & the Chocolate Factory

[GeorgeC]

Dear lord,

Can Tim Burton just stop it with the remakes and go back to adapting stories that HAVEN'T already been adapted into movies OR just doing his own original work?

Let's face it, his track record with remaking movies is NOT good. His track record of doing "new" takes on classic stories that have been done already is also disappointing.

A) Batman? His two movies haven't aged well. Most people that have read Batman can infer that Burton never read a Batman comic and that the movies resemble the character in name only. The live-action movie Bats does things the classic comic book version never would including killing people. (Big no-no and an important part of the character's established moral code.) The one thing that Burton can be thanked for is that the first movie was successful enough to convince WB to take a chance on an animated TV series which proved to be the most faithful and best adaptation of a superhero comic to date. The animated series (1992-1995) was also at least 20 times better than any of the live-action Bat films. (Admittedly, Schumacher's movies are worse, but I'm sorry to say that the Burton films really aren't that much better if you understand the basics of Batman.) The animated TV series also spawned arguably the best Batman movie to date, Mask of the Phantasm.

B) Sleepy Hollow. A dreary step-by-step homage to Hammer films that is almost nothing like the classic Washington Irving story. The Disney mini-feature is a superior adaptation and scarier than anything in the Burton movie.

(No slam intended on the Hammer movies, by the way. There are a few of the older Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee films that I like very much.)

C) Planet of the Apes. I haven't met anybody who's seen both the remake and the Charlton Heston/Roddy McDowall original that thinks Burton's movie is better.

When Burton has done original stories, the results have been far better and more satisfying. Pee-Wee's Big Adventure is the best of the two Pee-Wee movies. Edward Scissorhands is probably the most personal and human of Burton's movies. Big Fish is probably the best film of his that I've seen in at least 10 years. Even though Burton didn't direct it, The Nightmare Before Christmas has arguably becomes the world's best-loved stop-motion feature.

Next to the Cars trailer (which I finally got to see after 3 days spent with a slow computer), this Wonka remake trailer is the worst thing I've seen in a while.

Yes, the sets look nice, BUT it looks very familiar (gee, the sets look almost EXACTLY like the Gene Wilder movie's don't ya think?) and the music is VERY, VERY annoying.

(Note: The last time I heard a Danny Elfman score I liked was 1993... You guessed it -- The Nightmare Before Christmas!)

All the noise that Burton made about making a film truer to the book seems like so much B.S. just from looking at the trailer. Since when was Willy Wonka a youngish, effeminate-looking man wearing goofy glasses? I guess we're going from a "Blazing Saddles" Wonka to a Wonka that would be more comfortable in Michael Jackson's Neverland? How is either version true to the book?

(Granted, the Wilder Wonka bugs me a lot less than the Depp Wonka... and I've read both Willy Wonka books.)

It's just not smart for anybody to go remaking a classic movie. (It's like making a sequel to Gone With The End.) This film will be competing with the ghost of a long-classic and beloved favorite of many people.

I already know which version's music I like better!

[Ben]

Remember, George, that there WAS a sequel to Gone With The Wind (Timothy Dalton as Rhett...oh, please)!


Have to say that while I agree with you whole heartedly on why Burton (and Hollywood in general) can't stop with the remakes, this new Wonka teaser has brightened my thoughts on this one.

As a far of the book, I really liked the original movie (Wilder was just great in it), but they are two different things...a movie and a book. Both are out there and both can be enjoyed.

Yes, I feel that the "darker" new look of Burton's film isn't much more than what we got first time around - itself a fairly Burton-esque designed piece (all that swirly candy!) - but I am attracted to it.

Personally, I'd loved to have seen Walken in the role...now that would be a chilling Wonka. As it is, I'll hold out my doubts on this one, but totally hear where you're coming from.

[mr. squarepants]

Well, I totally agree with George about Burton's films. I don't know if I like Big Fish as much as most people, but it is a good, unique movie, nontheless. I also agree with Ben about Walken in the role of Wonka. That would have been awesome!

Anywho, my thoughts about the trailer: it's just okay. I mean, it is only a teaser trailer, so there isn't too much to judge about it. Still, this new movie has a lot to live up to. It will have to equal the book's story and the original movie's music. At least Depp will likely turn in a terrific performance. Imagine that same guy who was saying that cute, little rhyme to Violet, bursting out into wild anguish during the tunnel scene.

One thing is for sure. Like a guy at AICN stated, summer 2005 is going to see an increase in the sale of nightlights, with kids going to see a charcoaled Anakin, a tormented Batman fight with the Scarecrow, the last half-hour or so of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and a Tim Burton-directed Oompa Loompa.

[Macaluso]

Johnny Depp is so sexy.

[ShyViolet]

"Is he giving off too much of a strange Oompa-Loopa vibe?"

-Dr. Evil on Mini-me, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me.

I just hope the Oomp Loompas don't SING in this one. Remember the cheesy sixties psychedelic words popping up?

Anyway, I think Tim Burton is gifted in no matter what he does, even if he doesn't always get it right. I thought Batman and Batman Returns had many redeeming qualities (despite) their flaws and dated style. Jack was awesome in Batman and there were some scorching scenes in Returnes with Michelle and Michael. Sleepy Hollow was a great experiment, beautiful to behold but not always coherent.
Personally I agree with Tim that the Wilder version was too "light." There was just something missing IMO. I mean, the book was ULTRA dark...

Anyway, I guess I'll have to actually watch the trailer before I post anymore.

[GeorgeC]

Actually,

I am very aware of the Gone With the Wind sequel but let's just pretend it didn't happen, OK?

There are just some things you don't make sequels to, and other things you don't remake, period.

Burton and Hollywood at large have not learned this lesson yet.

[Stego]

One of the things i think Burton has stayed true to in ALL of his films is atmosphere. He has a very effective way of bringing the "feel" of his visions to the screen.

True, the best Batman film is Phantasm (in my opinion), True, Sleepy Hollow has its flaws, and Planet of the Apes was difficult to like, but i can still see the talent and effort put into these films and thus i still enjoy them (a good example being the entire town of Sleepy Hollow built for the film). Opinions are opinions...personally, the more i watched Planet of the Apes the more i enjoyed it. I'm not saying it is better than the original, but even Burton said that it wasn't a remake, just his own version of the story. *shrug* Take that any way you like, of course.

I'm not a big fan of sequels or remakes, but the new Wonka has definitely intrigued me, mainly because of Burton, Depp and Elfman.

I think Depp has proven that he can be "trusted" when it comes to his performances.

Elfman has had great scores since Nightmare...are they all winners? no. Are they all totally original as compared to his earlier works? no...but he still does amazing work and i have confidence in the fact that this is a project he will take seriously since it is tecnically 'dangerous territory' and he has commented in the past about how sensitively one should tread during those projects.

There does seem to be a lot of similar imagery in Wonka, i agree, but i'm going to wait until i see the film before i make a final analysis.

As for original content by Burton, he's currently producing another stop-motion film called "The Corpse Bride" ...here's a pic: http://www.aintitcool.com/image/corpsebride.jpg ironically Depp does vocal work and Elfman will score...

George, i totally agree about Batman the Animated Series...that's one success Hollywood hasn't taken seriously enough. There has never been a live-action Bat-flick that can have the impact that series does on a viewer (i think).

If i could have my way, i would probably not want Burton (or anyone else for that matter) remaking old favorites...but i'd rather he do it than someone else like...oh, Schumaker.

[mr. squarepants]

Joel Schumacher isn't THAT bad. I would rather have him directing a remake of some film, than whoever directed Glitter.

[Stego]

Joel Schumacher isn't THAT bad. I would rather have him directing a remake of some film, than whoever directed Glitter.

Well, in that case, yeah...but that's hardly a fair comparisson

I thought Phone Booth was a decent flick...and Phantom of the Opera looks alright too. Let me re-phrase that: I wouldn't want Schumaker making any super-hero movies.

[Ben]

There are just some things you don't make sequels to, and other things you don't remake, period. Burton and Hollywood at large have not learned this lesson yet.

Neither has Disney! Bambi II, anyone?

I'm not a big fan of sequels or remakes, but the new Wonka has definitely intrigued me, mainly because of Burton, Depp and Elfman. Burton's currently producing another stop-motion film called "The Corpse Bride".

I can't wait for Corpse Bride. Meant to mention that above. The team behind Nightmare on another stop-motion epic? YES! And don't forget that it's being animated at Vinten, currently managed by...Henry Selick (though he's not actually directing this one), so the whole gang is back together.

I'm also holding back on what the final film will be like, but so far, and while I like Depp's look in it, the film does seem to be a carbon copy. I mean, check out Veruca Salt! Creepy!

Joel Schumacher isn't THAT bad. I would rather have him directing a remake of some film, than whoever directed Glitter.

Schumacher IS that bad! And don't go dissing on my lady Mariah's film, no matter how bad it was!

[ShyViolet]

Just watched it. I loved the look of the film, and the zaniness. It seemed kind of dark too which I definetely appreciated. You couldn't really tell what JD's performance will be like, since we didn't really see him talk. It seemed interesting though, like always with him.

HOWEVER,

WHAT IS WITH THAT WIG????? and pale-skin combo??????

He DOES look like an earlier version of Michael Jackson...hardly the image you want with a movie like this.

I wonder what Charlie will be like? I always thought the other Charlie looked way too....healthy. I mean, he's suppposed to be STARVING to death.

"Chewing gum is really gross. Chewing gum I hate the most."

[ShyViolet]

Personally, I'd loved to have seen Walken in the role...now that would be a chilling Wonka. As it is, I'll hold out my doubts on this one, but totally hear where you're coming from.

Walken would be hilarious: "Scooch closer, children. Don't make me tell you...about the scooching!"

(The Simpsons)

And seeing that Depp did really well with kids in Finding Neverland this season, I think he'll do well with kids in this movie too.

[Stego]

And seeing that Depp did really well with kids in Finding Neverland this season, I think he'll do well with kids in this movie too.

How do you mean? Did the movie test well with children...or did the children of the film get along well with him on the set?

[ShyViolet]

I think I meant that he acted well with them. (I haven't seen the film, but it got positive reviews.) There are four boys he acts with.

[Ben]

Disney, who make a lot of movies at the Elstree Studios where I work, send over prints of their newer films for the crews working there.

I caught Finding Neverland and Hero in this way recently, and then went back out to see Neverland again with my partner (who couldn't make the Studio showing).

It's a great little film, with some nice effects work. Depp IS good in the film, if a little understated, but I'm certainly not sure about all this talk about it being a frontrunner in the Oscar stakes though.

As I say, it's a "great little film", though it doesn't dig deep into its subject and seemed very "light" overall. I learned nothing about JM Barrie himself (other than he wrote rubbish before meeting a family and getting inspired for Peter Pan), and they didn't really touch on the Great Ormond Street Hospital involvement either. A lot of it was a bit Shakespere In Love, with little things jumping out at him, and the audience required to go "oohhh, that's going to become such and such... in Peter Pan".

A good little film, and enjoyable, but I'd be surprised at an Oscar win, for Picture or Actor.