I haven't seen the new version yet. Some say it's terrible, compared to the old one, and some say it's better. Personally, I love the 1971 version, but I want to know what the new one's like. Opinions?6/21/2006 #1
Wow. I really suggest renting the new one or something.6/23/2006 #2
As far as the storyline, the new movie tries to stick more to the book. The old one moves away from some of the book's parts.
The new one is very visually entertaining because of all the special effects that it has, which of course could not have been pulled off in the years of the older one.
Johnny Depp is a main point of the film. His performance is very well done. He is quirky and energetic... and just plain frightening!
However, when I saw the new one, I was a bit dissapointed that some of the old movie's things were not included. For example, rather than a goose with a golden egg, there are squirrels who crack nuts--- although it is a very exciting sight to see because they are all real squirrels who hgave actually been trained to do this, no CGI.-- The ending was a bit cheesy and did not end the same as the original. I won't spoil it for you though.
There are some really funny jokes in the new one that are played on.
But the only real problem about the new one that drives me crazy is the fact that it is not a musical. Don't get me wrong, there are several songs which the Oompa Loompas sing, but that is it. But those songs are charming and enjoyable too... but I would have really liked to have seen Depp and the children just break into song and dance. But it never happened.
Oh and another main difference: rather than being freaky little orange and green dudes, the new Oopma Loompas are tanned little fellows with black hair. The odd thing they did though, that I find reeeeally doesn'y work well is that when the oompa loompas appear next to people, they have been shrunken down even tinier with computers and the whole thing just looks so fake. They're small enough already as it is.
I prefer the new one, but I agree with that last person -- the Oompa Loompas are too small. I mean, Deep Roy [the actor who played all of the Oompa Loompas] is only like four feet two.7/23/2006 #3
The new one, of course! I have always preferred remakes of movie/books to the originals, which are all 20th century7/21/2007 #4
I prefer the older one because I grew up watching it and old habits do die hard. I know that it is not totally in tuned with the book, but I prefer the older movie because I love music and 'Pure Imagination' is a personal favorite song of mine.9/20/2007 #5
The new movie was OK, but I think I prefer a lot of the fiction that people have written here with the movie to the actual movie. But, that's just me.
Newer one hands down. I saw both of them (though I only was able to watch the newer one on YouTube) and frankly, the older one gave me some bad nightmares the first time I watched it. Also, the newer one is much closer to the book. I always prefer films that stay close to the book storyline. The 1971 version kept drifting away from it.11/13/2007 #6
I think the oompa-loompas were supposed to be really small. I mean, in the book, one of the fathers comments that they only came up to his knee. That seemed right in the 2005 movie.
I've never read the book-I was going to in second grade but I was new there and something went amiss- or maybe I did read it......either way I don't remember anything. At first I thought the old one was atrocious. Horribly horribly old fashioned. But now I like both Wonka's and the non-oompa loompa songs of the old one have grown on me. But they're oompa loompas creeped me out! I had weird dreams after that. The new loompas are disappointing cause they're all the same. I think the old ones are too big and the new ones too small. It's Goldilocks people. The old movie was too-old. No CGI, the style was old, the fashion sense was old. Ick! But it was good. The new one was nice and modern but was really creepy! It freaked me out....but Depp was great in it! So I'm torn.6/01/2008 #7
I guess being the person who likes the classics, I will outline specifically why it is I like the older film. I became a Gene Wilder fan through this film, not a fan of this film through Gene Wilder. I was very reluctant about watching the remake because I felt that the original film was so great (I still do). There was a realness to it that I simply adore.
Even after having seen the newer film, I was incessantly comparing it back to the 71 version. I couldn't stop myself from doing so. I was comparing the children, the parents / grandparents, Wonka, the Oompa Loompas and even the guy in the candy store. I could not find anything in the new film that I liked better than the old film, not even the chocolate room. There was something about the 71 set that somehow tapped into the fantasy of my youth, as well as the fact that it was actually there, I mean, not created by a computer, but really physically present. Even though I could not have physically seen either place, there was a feeling in my mind that the 71 set was real and through that, somehow enhanced the overall story. The idea that these were all real objects that the actors and actresses could hold them in their hands and enjoy, was perhaps what clinched it for me.
This isn't to say that there were not aspects of that in the new film as I think there were, but one of the things I noticed while I was watching was how much of it was real, and how much was inserted during post production. That is to say that to me everything was so computer generated that the overall impact was sort of lost. Visually, it was quite stunning, that I will concede, but was it real? It doesn't mean that I think computers are bad, but think about this. Back in 1971, there was no hyped up computer programs out there. There was no way for them to really make the Oompa Loompas uniform because you had different actors playing the different roles. There was also no way to shrink a person down to the size that Deep Roy was because technologically, we were not there yet.
Along those same lines, the computer that you saw in the 71 movie was pretty much it. It was limited to typing that is similar to that which comes out of an old typewriter. That was where technology was and that was what the people had to go with. I grew up in that era, and I am so utterly grateful that I did because I can embrace the things that the imagination can create without all the bells and whistles affixed. I am always amazed with how wonderfully movie makers were able to put things together without the aid of supped up computer generations. This is what the 71 film did; it was innovative, it was fun, but to me, it was also very real.
As for the clothes, it was the fashion of the time. The 05 concept probably appeals more than the 71 concept because most of you reading are probably younger than me and it is perhaps more visually attractive. But, that was the fashion of that day, purples and greens were hip. I know that a lot of you guys are college aged, perhaps still in school. You cannot remember the times before the World Wide Web, or even before microwave ovens. Perhaps you don't even remember ever seeing a grainy or black and white photograph of yourself, but in that era that was the way it was, that was where we were.
I think the main reason I am so loyal to the 71 film is because it reminds me not only of how far we have come, but it reminds me of how much ingenuity is contained in the human spirit. I remember how we could take a cardboard box and fly to the moon. Our imaginations were limitless and we could do it without cheating and using the technology to do it. There’s a whimsical feeling of fantasy that never escapes me each time I watch the original film. I'm sorry to say, but with all the things that Mr. Burton had at his disposal during the time the 05 film was made, I simply came to the conclusion that 'more' does not necessarily mean 'better'.
I still haven't to see the new version, and after seeing Sweeny Todd I am most anxious to see it merely for Johnny Depp's acting.
Yva J., my parents were young adults in the '70s. I myself am still in highschool. In what you have written, I believe you have pinpointed the reason I've always found the old movie so attractive: it was real. The Chocolate Room was always one of my favorite scenes for that. I also think nothing could ever replace the old Oompa Loompas; they were incredible... orange skin, green hair and oddly-shaped pants are forever dear to me because of them. Also, older styles of clothing and suchhave never bothered me; in fact, I think they add charm to the movie. As for the styles in the newer movie... I've seen photos, and I never liked them much; they seem overdone.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. Though I am still very young, I have a deep appreciation for this movie and for the reasons you enjoy it as well.
I looove the 2005 version! Here are the reasons why.
Johnny Depp played the role beautifully as he was suited for it.
And I love the idea of the new Veruca Salt, and Julia Winter did an awesome job of bringing her to life in the film as well. Her temper tantrums were toned down, and she wasn't aggressive or whiny. (I loved that as well.)
And last but not least, I learned a good lesson while watching the 2005 film in a theatre for the first time, too. No good ever comes from spoiling a child.
I think that, in my mind, the 2005 version will always be really neat, as well as very inspiring. :)6/06/2008 . Edited 7/12/2012 #10
Scarlet Snidget, objectively one could watch the 05 film and enjoy it. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy some aspects of the film, and it didn't end up getting sold off on Ebay (which generally tells you that I will watch the film again). It does get compared by me to Gene Wilder, Peter Ostrum et.al. in the 71 fillm and something tells me you might find yourself unconsciously comparing it to the older version.
I was just wondering something though. Do some people only like the 05 version of the film because of Johnny Depp being in it? That is, would people be as big into it if it was some unknown actor being cast to play the role? I mean; I like some of his films, PotC is pretty good, and 'Finding Neverland' was IMO absolutely brilliant. So, yes, while I do think he is a good actor, I would not be chomping at the bit to go see all of his movies. Basically, 'Sweeny Todd' is not on my list of movies to watch. (BTW, if the answer to my question is yes, then that's OK, I'm a big Gene Wilder fan, and I have watched and enjoyed most of his films.)
I don't mean all of this to be mean, because we are all entitled to our preferences here, but I keep reading that everyone loved Johnny Depp in the film, but I read nothing about Freddy Highmore or Christopher Lee who, to me, really saved the film. As Wonka's father, Christopher Lee carried a presence in the film that I hadn't seen the likes of since he did the voice for King Haggard in 'The Last Unicorn'. Then there was the the boy who played Charlie, wow, I can't say enough about his performance. I had seen him in 'Finding Neverland' and was totally impressed with the way he acted. Really a stunning performance by a child actor. So, yes, the 05 version did have its high points for me, but, it truly is a pity that instead of making note of the other actors in the story, the focus always seems to be on Johnny Depp.6/07/2008 #11
I prefer the new movie, but the older one, without a doubt, is classic. Reasons:
-Johny Depp is a wonderful Mr.Wonka, although he made it a bit creepy. but the thing is, that is what happens when Tim and Johny get together to make a movie.
-The new one is truer to the book in many ways==squirrles were in the book, not ducks; Oopma Loompa sizes are correct, not too small, and not too tall; the glass elevator was enirely glass; the charicters were more... in charicter; Charlie was the good, humble, sweet boy he sould've been in the frst place, the origional charlie wasn't guite right; there was no test to trick the children in the book, it was simply the heart of the child and whether or not they were rotten
- Yva J., I understand your point of veiw on Johny Depp. He did, in fact, play a very good Wonka, but I agree that he SHOULN'T be everyone's main focus. Now, if you mixed Wilder and Depp, it would be perfect.
-In the old movie, everything in Mr. Wonka's office was cut in half, which kinda creeps me and my mum out a bit
-Grandma Geogina was totaly AWSOME in the 05 movie.
-The old movie, however, had the lickable wallpaper, which i desperatly loved
-in the new movie, they used CGI only when nesisary, like the chocolate river ride; but the entire chocolate room was real, including the river, although it wasn't chocolate, of course
That's all I hav to say,unless I forgot anything since it's a bit late6/17/2008 #12
I would have to say that the new one is better in most ways. That's not to say that the old one is completely no good, but that overall when I compare the two, the new one is just a better film. First, there's the fact that in 2005 Burton et al were able to do certain special effects/have certain kinds of artistic options available to them that were not available to the original filmmakers in 1971; while this does not always make for a better film, it does in this case). Second, the new one does stick more to the book and respects Dahl's original vision more so than the new one. Next, I have to say that I'm not a fan of musicals/don't really like a lot of singing in a movie (though I do love opera; no offense to musical lovers out there: I'm not saying they're bad; it's just a personal preference) so by default I like the new version better because it has fewer songs and the songs that they do have are limited to Dahl's original poems in the book that occur when each bad child meets his/her fate. I felt the 'extra' songs in the first film took away from the movie as a whole. Also, I thought that in the first film there were many scenes that could have been easily deleted without affect to the plot; there was just too much extra stuff in the original movie that did not contribute to the story and too little that did; I felt that the newer film has more substance and less superfluity. I also felt that by having Charlie and his grandfather take the lifting drinks in the first movie that this was contrary to Charlie's character and didn't really fit: while it did make Charlie more human, I felt that the whole point of Charlie's character was to illustrate the alternative to the behaviors of the bad children and that making him disobedient completely ruined this symbolism (as I see it). I also felt that the second movie gave the characters more depth; I felt that the second characters better satisified what I felt was a strong component of the book: a social satire/social commentary. By further exaggerating the childrens' misbehavior in the second film, I felt that it made a stronger statement against the types of behaviors exhibited by the bad children and their parents. The acting, too, was much better in the second film overall. I must say though that I did enjoy Wilder's performance and I thought both he and Depp did a great job with the role. I do have to say that I thought overall Depp's Wonka is probably more 'realistic' in the sense that he seems further removed from humanity than does Wilder's Wonka; in particular Depp's lack of social graces, pale complexion, flashbacks, over-the-top wardrobe, and aversion to human contact really speak to his character's isolation from the world, whereas Wilder's Wonka has more traces of a social being in that he is better able to communicate with the children and displays behavior less 'troubled' than Depp's Wonka.
But, that's just me ;-)8/11/2008 #13
I would have to say that the new one is better in most ways. That's not to say that the old one is completely no good, but that overall when I compare the two, the new one is just a better film. First, there's the fact that in 2005 Burton et al were able to do certain special effects/have certain kinds of artistic options available to them that were not available to the original filmmakers in 1971; while this does not always make for a better film, it does in this case. Second, the new one does stick more to the book and respects Dahl's original vision more so than the old one. Next, I have to say that I'm not a fan of musicals/don't really like a lot of singing in a movie (though I do love opera; no offense to musical lovers out there: I'm not saying they're bad; it's just a personal preference) so by default I like the new version better because it has fewer songs and the songs that they do have are limited to Dahl's original poems in the book that occur when each bad child meets his/her fate. I felt the 'extra' songs in the first film took away from the movie as a whole. Also, I thought that in the first film there were many scenes that could have been easily deleted without affect to the plot; there was just too much extra stuff in the original movie that did not contribute to the story and too little that did; I felt that the newer film has more substance and less superfluity. I also felt that by having Charlie and his grandfather take the lifting drinks in the first movie that this was contrary to Charlie's character and didn't really fit: while it did make Charlie more human, I felt that the whole point of Charlie's character was to illustrate the alternative to the behaviors of the bad children and that making him disobedient completely ruined this symbolism (as I see it). I also felt that the second movie gave the characters more depth; I felt that the second characters better satisified what I felt was a strong component of the book: a social satire/social commentary. By further exaggerating the childrens' misbehavior in the second film, I felt that it made a stronger statement against the types of behaviors exhibited by the bad children and their parents. The acting, too, was much better in the second film overall. I must say though that I did enjoy Wilder's performance and I thought both he and Depp did a great job with the role. I do have to say that I thought overall Depp's Wonka is probably more 'realistic' in the sense that he seems further removed from humanity than does Wilder's Wonka; in particular Depp's lack of social graces, pale complexion, flashbacks, over-the-top wardrobe, and aversion to human contact really speak to his character's isolation from the world, whereas Wilder's Wonka has more traces of a social being in that he is better able to communicate with the children and displays behavior less 'troubled' than Depp's Wonka.
But, that's just me ;-)8/11/2008 . Edited 8/11/2008 #14
I completely agree with you! You said basicly everything idid except you coud pt in hte details of what u wher talking about. :D8/11/2008 #15
Although there's ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with sayin which film you like better, I just think it a bit unfair to compare them. I mean, they're both based on a book and I just kind of look at them as completely different things. Because they ARE! lol I love both versions. Gene Wilder is so fantastic! And of coarse Johnny Depp is my favorite actor!4/20/2009 #16
OMG I love the newer one! I don't know why, but the older one never really caught my attention as much as the newer one did. My friends all think I'm crazy (cause they think the new one's creepy and that the old one's a classic...which it is) for liking it...4/25/2009 #17
I like the newer one for reasons that I will heartily explain:
I grew up with the '71 version. I watched it whenever it was on, and I loved it. I really liked the rooms, Willy Wonka, the Oompa Loompa songs etc. When I saw the trailer for the 2005 one, I was interested and wanted to see it. I was curious to see how it fared with the older one. My mom was hesitant as she read a bad review by a critic in the paper, but we went to the theater anyway. As soon as I saw the main title I was interested; the main theme of the movie (AKA the introductory song) was awesome. It got me hooked instantly. It captured the mood of a dark fantasy world, and those types of worlds are captivating.
As soon as I saw Willy Wonka in action, I thought he was awesome! I know a lot of people only point out Johnny Depp, but that's because he really did steal the show! You wanted to see him more often. Other actors though, I liked Freddie Highmore (Like Johnny himself said, he has this kind of quality that suits Charlie) and Grandma Georgina of course. ;) As for the size of the oompa loompas, I actually found the size more interesting. It made them seem more unrealistic. (which is the idea of Loompaland) Sure, the ending was a bit cheesy, but I thought it was very suitable for this version of Willy Wonka.
And actually, I didn't like this movie because I love Johnny Depp's work... the movie itself is what made me interested in the actor in the first place. :D I respect the people who appreciate the '71 version better, but since seeing the newer one, I instantly forgot about the old one and appreciated this version. :)10/20/2009 #18
1971 vs. 2005:
Both movies were creepy, but in different ways. This is either a good or bad thing, considering your point of view, being either: "Ooh! Look! It's creepy!" or "I don't like creepy movies." I don't myself, or at least the blatantly creepy. the story was written by Roald Dahl, who was creepy, have you ever heard of "A lamb to the slaughter?"
You could say that both movies were just products of their times: '71 version is cheerily creepy, well it was the 70's, and 05 version is dark creepy, well it was the aughts.
Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka is your average, run-of-the-mill creep, you can find him in any large concentration of creeps, but Wilder is more interesting, as he was good at playing mind games. He had all those kids wrapped around his finger, and you could see him give each character a little mental push. I swear he pushed Augustus Gloop into the river. Neither was the Willy Wonka I read in the book, as that guy was pretty cheerful.
BTW, have you noticed that the movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is really about Charlie and the movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is really about Willy Wonka?7/13/2010 #19
I myself like Johnny Depp's performance as Willy Wonka in the 2005 film because he's really inspiring, and it was like he did give the four bratty kids a mental push into whatever it was they did in order to get them to leave the tour. And I also like how he and Julia Winter (who played Veruca Salt) sometimes interacted with each other in the few scenes they had together, too. It was pretty cool! :)7/14/2010 . Edited 3/05/2012 #20
For a while, I liked the newer one better: I was a Depp fangirl and I dunno....I thought the movie was funny.
Then I watched the old one again.
And I changed my mind. Wilder was a true madman--living in his own little world and doing things his own way. However, he was also a genius and had a one up on the children the entire time. I liked his lack of 'caring' whenever the children acted out of got into trouble; it was brilliantly creepy, but in a way that, if you don't look for it, you won't REALLY notice it. And the "Wonderous Boat Ride" scene was just....I dunno, I loved it 3
I did watch the newer one again, but....I dunno. I guess I'm not a fan of the paranoid, insecure 'child in a man's body with a father complex' Wonka. I liked the brilliant madman with a wild look in his eye.
Although I DO like both Grandpa Joes (still like the old one better though--he has a sparkle in his eye.) And I like both Charlies too.9/23/2010 #21
I think the old movie was close to the spirit of the book, but the new movie has the best Wonka - Johnny Depp.5/28/2011 #22
|Velvet Nights and Satin Skies
I realize that this topic hasn't been visited for a while, but I have to put my two cents in:
I am one of the few older people on this site, mostly because busy mothers don't have time to sit down and write fanfiction. I grew up in the '70s and '80s, I remember those embarrassing black-and-white highschool yearbook pictures, and I remember those TVs with dials on them. What I'm trying to say is that I'm naturally biased towards the '71 version, because I watched it when I was nine years old and had a massive crush on Gene Wilder. But that isn't the point - the point is that the '05 version is scarier, plain and simple. I didn't like Depp's performance as Wonka at ALL; I thought the whole 'oh-daddy-hates-me-so-I'll-run-away' thing was entirely unnecessary and took away from the movie. They could have portrayed his father's dislike for candy in a much better way, and the idea of a small child surviving on his own is ridiculous. Wilder kept it innocent, with an almost sweet quality that can't be matched. Depp was frightening, with his melting dolls and weird little laugh and squeaky gloves and bad childhood. Truthfully, I wouldn't allow any of my children to go on a tour with him, supervised or not.
But I'm harping too much on the actors themselves - the '71 version was sweeter. Yes, the '05 version was asthetically pleasing, with the slick digital embellishments and tiny little Oompa-Loompas, but they doctored it up too much. They lost the magic of the film, burying it beneath the strange factory and chocolatier - They misplaced the loving relationship between chocolatier and boy, and instead replaced it with a childish man who finally got a family. Also, the idea of not allowing Charlie to bring is family is ABSURD - I laughed out loud when I saw it in the movie, and all of my children were looking at me funny. But when you've seen the original movie, you can't help it - Willy Wonka was just as much in love with Charlie's family as Charlie is. As for the new movie being funnier, that's true - there were more punchlines, but no amount of humor can make a mediocre movie excellent.
Also, my last two points:
Wonka: Just remember what happened to the man who got everything he ever wanted.
Charlie: What's that?
Wonka: He got everything he ever wanted.
"Come with me,
And you'll be,
In a world of pure imagination
Take a look,
And you'll see,
Into you're imagination."
You cannot beat either of those quotes with the '05 movie. I rest my case.10/24/2011 #23
That's really good. :)
Wonka: Just remember what happened to the man who got everything he ever wanted.
Wonka: He lived happily ever after.10/24/2011 . Edited 2/18/2012 #24
The Oompa Loompas in the 2005 version may be strangely small, but the Oompa Loompas from the 1971 version gave my 6 year old brother nightmares. They are rather creepy.2/18/2012 #25
Good morning, starshine, the earth says hello! 'Nuff said2/18/2012 #26
The 1971 oompa-loompas gave me nightmares, too. Or they rattled me enough that I had a hard time falling asleep that night...I don't remember. But I do remember they creeped me out.2/20/2012 #27
Good morning, starshine, the earth says hello! 'Nuff said
I cannot agree more there. :) I like that quote, too.2/22/2012 . Edited 2/22/2012 #28
Really late into the discussion I know, but I did not watch the latest version until last week. I can honestly say that I love both films equally, because I love both films for different reasons.
When it comes to which films' Willy Wonka did I enjoy more, I have to say that I lean more towards Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka (which is such an oddity considering I am a huge fan of Johnny Depp). I felt that the Willy Wonka in the elder version was a little more calculating and intelligent, while maintaining that whimsy that everyone associates with Willy Wonka. But Depp's Wonka was... confusing. He doesn't appear to have any interest in any of the children, and it is so weird considering that he held a contest specifically for children to win golden tickets to gain entrance to his factory. While I understand that he is supposed to be a childish man, but if he really wished for one of these children to be his heir, I think he would have at least tried to learn their names!
As for all the other characters, I love the update that the newer movie brought to them. Mike Teevee was more obsessed with video games and I love that his parents were more ignorant or careless with Mike's life and influences. Also, I love that they made the youngest child the coldest one in terms of personality. It was really cool to see that drastic change in his character instead of making him another annoying, loud kid. Violet's update was also much better than the 1971 film, because her dilemma was much more realistic than a girl who chews gum a lot. She was obsessed with winning to prove her worth and deserving of love from her disgusting soccer mom who was living through her daughter. Veruca and Augustus still maintained the stereotypes they represented, but I think the better cast for those kids are again, the newer movie, because of their eyes. Both of their eyes seem to be able to convince you that they really are those stereotypical children they are trying to represent. Augustus's eyes throughout the whole film looked so... mindless and absent of complex thought, while Veruca's were sickening cold, but tried their best to appear warm and cheerful. But perhaps I'm over-analyzing. Hahaha. But I think the best update was the Charlie character himself. I ALWAYS HATED THE CHARLIE FROM THE OLDER MOVIE. Good lord, that's the nice kid that we're supposed to like? I did not see much difference between him and the other children. He's just as big a brat as the rest of them in the old version (it was only towards the end that he was somewhat nice)! The Charlie in the new version is very sweet, and really exemplifies all those qualities that we should strive for in ourselves. His goodness in the face of struggles and everything terrible in life make us understand the reason why he's the best choice.
In terms of the visuals, I think (obviously) the newer version is better. But I don't think for the same reasons that everyone else thinks. I think Tim Burton's visuals are actually more timeless than the older version. The 1971 version, you can clearly pinpoint that yes, it takes place in the 1970s. But with Tim Burton's version, you can't really pinpoint a precise year. The city they are in looks like it could be anywhere and at any year, and even the children's fashion choices are more timeless! Also, the factory in the newer version actually looks like a factory, while the older version is... well, just seems like a jumbled mess of bright colors. But the thing I did not like about Tim Burton's film was that he did so well in making it timeless, that the factory did not appear as whimsical or as strange as the 1971 version. Also, the 1971 version had the spooky tunnel, which was so awesome... but still, I like Tim Burton's visuals because they are updated, yet timeless at the same time which is REALLY HARD to pull off.
The songs are another obvious choice for me, the older version excelled in that area. I cannot recall any of the lyrics or melodies of the songs in the newer version, which takes away some of the flamboyant whimsy that we want from these movies. While I thought it was creative of the 2005 movie to use a different decade for every child, all of them were forgettable and none of the main characters ever sang! Johnny Depp has a wonderful voice, why not use it to your advantage? Were the children and the rest of the cast just that bad at singing that they couldn't include singing from the main characters?
But when it comes to the stories, I love and hate both of them. What I would actually would have liked, is if the older version focused more on Willy Wonka while the newer version focused more on Charlie (basically, the two films switch stories). Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka was much more interesting and complex, and it would have been more interesting hearing about his progress of becoming the person he became. The 2005 film's Charlie was adorable, pleasant, and the Charlie that I actually would have wanted to see and learn about.
So... when a director finally comes up with a film that combines the personality of Willy Wonka from the 1971 movie, finds both a Charlie and perfect cast of kids like they did in the 2005 movie, timeless visuals of the 2005 movie, fun songs similar to the 1971 version, and fuses the two versions' stories together, that will be to me the "supreme" version!9/24/2012 #29
|Forum Moderators: DJ LAZA|
|Membership Length: 2+ years 1 year 6+ months 1 month 2+ weeks new member|