Mmmm Depp and Burton together again...

[Adora]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/TheAnimeSchoolgirl/p-wonka.jpg

Doesn't get any better than that.

PS: This is not a hoax. You officially have permission to wet your pants.

[viscousmemories]

Awww yeah. This could be very cool. :yup:

[wade-w]

/me shrugs

I've heard the name Johnny Depp before, but I couldn't tell you what he looks like or anything he's been in. I have no idea who this Burton person is. Should I care?

[Petra]

t.

PS: This is not a hoax. You officially have permission to wet your pants.


Oh, god. I've just been reminded of how to make masturbatory orgasms more intense.

Oh, god.

Johnny Depp... :vapours:

[Scotty]

Well, as long as it isn't another "Time doesn't travel in a straight line in an electromagnetic storm", then I will be pretty happy.

-Scott

[beyelzu]

* wade-w shrugs

I've heard the name Johnny Depp before, but I couldn't tell you what he looks like or anything he's been in. I have no idea who this Burton person is. Should I care?
you have to be kidding me


tim burton Edward Scissorhands the first two batman movies

Johnny Depp Edward scissorhands, dead man, sleepy hollow, ed wood



and a fuckload more.

do you not watch movies much?

[D. Scarlatti]

Cool, a flamewar over a movie poster (which looks pretty gay to me).

[viscousmemories]

:woohoo: Who said flamewar?

Bey named most of the big ones, but Burton also directed Beetlejuice and Mars Attacks, and Depp also starred in Pirates of the Carribean, What's Eating Gilbert Grape, From Hell, and a plethora of other great roles. He's one of the best actors working, IMO. He's also a perfect match for Burton's flavor of surrealist fantasy.

[D. Scarlatti]

I'm confused. What happened to Willy Wonka?

The Candy Man makes everything he bakes satisfying and delicious
Now you talk about your childhood wishes, you can even eat the dishes

The Worst Songs of All Time (http://www.popculturemadness.com/Music/WORST.html)

[Godless Dave]

The original was perfect. Why remake it?

[beyelzu]

The original was perfect. Why remake it?
because burton and depp will make it better.

more perfect than perfect.

[Cool Hand]

The original was perfect. Why remake it?

I'm with you. The first one was perfect.

Of course, we all know why it was remade. It's much easier to recycle old ideas and to turn them into hits than it is to try something new and original. Hollywood is risk adverse. There is so much money involved in making a major motion picture that it's too risky to veer much from a tried and proven formula.

Dusting off a 30 year old kids' classic guarantees a base audience who remember it fondly and will see it as a tribute, or just for comparison's sake. Their kids will see it too. Not only that, it's an artistic challenge for someone like Burton to see how much of his own style he can put into it while remaining faithful to the basic story.

Of course, I really like Tim Burton's style and Johnny Depp's talent and screen presence too. Depp has a great knack for choosing offbeat roles and making them his own. In my opinion, he is one of the most talented actors of his age cohort.

Cool Hand

[beyelzu]

The original was perfect. Why remake it?

I'm with you. The first one was perfect.

Of course, we all know why it was remade. It's much easier to recycle old ideas and to turn them into hits than it is to try something new and original. Hollywood is risk adverse. There is so much money involved in making a major motion picture that it's too risky to veer much from a tried and proven formula. with burton and depp, I am going to have to assume that there is more to it than that. I cant remember either of them just dialing it in and doing something just for cash, both have vision.

Dusting off a 30 year old kids' classic guarantees a base audience who remember it fondly and will see it as a tribute, or just for comparison's sake. Their kids will see it too. Not only that, it's an artistic challenge for someone like Burton to see how much of his own style he can put into it while remaining faithful to the basic story.

It will probably make a fuckload of money. I figure it will be more adult than the first one though.

[Dingfod]

I'll bet this will sell a LOT of chocolate candy, LOTS.


"Oh, Johnny... Oh, Johnny... you're so gooood. Oh... oh... ohhhhhh!!!"

I didn't even like the first one, Gene Wilder grates on my nerves (other than Young Fronkensteen), but Willy Wonka played by Johnny Depp and a Tim Burton twist, mmmm, chocolatey.

[viscousmemories]

I do have fond... (hmm, I was going to say "fond memories of the first one", but then that contradicts this next part...) but I don't remember it at all. In any case my only real interest in it is the collaboration of these two great artists.

[THX1138]

I've just officially wet my pants!

Tim Burton + Johnny Depp = good movie! :popcorn:

J

[wade-w]

do you not watch movies much?

Nope. I very rarely watch TV either.

I pretty much lost what little interest I had in movies when special effects became more important than plot and acting.

[wei yau]

The first movie creeped me out. Granted, I watched it at age 30 and not 13, and this may be the source of my discomfort.

Willy Wonka kills children. He kills them. He's smarmy and creepy and he kills children.

At the time I watched it, I pretty much just discovered IIDB and was very into my STRONG atheism. There's a lot of Christian allegory in the story that I find a little disturbing.

All that being said, I look forward to another Depp/Burton production. I haven't liked all of them (particularly Edward Scissorhands), but the two of them are two of the most creative people out there right now.

[livius drusus]

I love them both and love the idea of them doing C&TCF. Mmm... Johnny Depp in velvet frock coats...

[Johnny Pneumatic]

[QUOTE=eldar1011]The first movie creeped me out. Granted, I watched it at age 30 and not 13, and this may be the source of my discomfort.

Willy Wonka kills children. He kills them. He's smarmy and creepy and he kills children.
At the time I watched it, I pretty much just discovered IIDB and was very into my STRONG atheism. There's a lot of Christian allegory in the story that I find a little disturbing.[QUOTE]

No children die in the movie, come on. The mom gets her obese son back, blueberry girl is juiced and spoiled bitch doesn't burn.

Other than the grunka lunka's singing, what was even remotely close to christian values?

[LadyShea]

The original was perfect. Why remake it?

I am right with you. The original is flawless. However, if Burton changes things up it might be interesting, but could never beat the original.

[Adora]

For a new generation, the original isn't flawless. It's dated. The sing-song with grandpa when the kid got back home with the ticket always used to shit me off when I was a kid, and it still does. As do the bowl-cuts and brown turtlenecks. The original movie was good, I'm not disputing that. But yeah, the new one will probably make a shitload, and hopefully have a definite style about it thanks to Burton.

That, and Depp is a god. Hell, he was even good in Lost in la Mancha, and it wasn't even a movie.

[wei yau]

No children die in the movie, come on. The mom gets her obese son back, blueberry girl is juiced and spoiled bitch doesn't burn.

Other than the grunka lunka's singing, what was even remotely close to christian values?

My reaction to the movie was not meant to offend the fans of the movie. My reaction is not entirely rational, much like my fear of clowns.

But, I don't recall seeing blueberry girl return "in the flesh". Wonka makes some offhand remark that they are all fine, but I don't trust the smarmy bastard.

As for Christian values, perhaps not values per se, but I do see an allegory. The special candy that Charlie and his grandpa steal is forbidden fruit. When Charlie expresses regret and redeems himself with Wonka, he's taken away in an elevator up to the heavens.

I'm sure its superficial and terribly silly, but it all came to me when I was feeling pretty self-righteous about being an atheist.

[Petra]

The original was perfect. Why remake it?
because burton and depp will make it better.

more perfect than perfect.

I agree. I think it will be better than the original, too. A rare thought for me when I hear the word "remake". This is gonna rocky road choc-overload with more eye candy than a sugar-coated eostrogen bar and two testosterone dipped goof balls at a chipndale party!

It's gonna be deeee-licious!


mmmmm, Johnny Depp... :lolly:


:martini:

[Petra]

...a movie poster (which looks pretty gay to me).

:loser:

[Godfather]

My, this thread is a pretty good indication of how this remake is gonna go down. Acceptance is surely going to be more or less inversely proportional to chronological age. I'm torn between my old, crusty side that loves the original as a treasured piece of my childhood (even though it was made few years before I was born) and the part of me that thinks it can't help but kick arse. The crusty side, I'm sorry to say, is way out in front. I am so heartily sick of Hollywood remake-itis I could just about puke. And let's not pretend Tim Burton can do no wrong. I mean, Planet of the Apes - another entirely unnecessary remake - does not portend well. And rumours abound about of CG oompa-loompas.

For a new generation, the original isn't flawless. It's dated.
So is Casablanca. We can love a work of art for its flaws as well as for its virtues.

[livius drusus]

And let's not pretend Tim Burton can do no wrong. I mean, Planet of the Apes - another entirely unnecessary remake - does not portend well.

Very good point. That's probably the only Tim Burton movie I found thoroughly crappy. Well, I admit I thought Tim Roth was kinda sexy as an ape, but other than that it was just a generic, poorly written, dull, big budget movie.

And rumours abound about of CG oompa-loompas.

Dear God.

[freemonkey]

This is gonna rocky road choc-overload with more eye candy than a sugar-coated eostrogen bar and two testosterone dipped goof balls at a chipndale party!

It's gonna be deeee-licious!


mmmmm, Johnny Depp... :lolly:


:martini:
:hysteric: :yup:

[Scotty]

I guess nobody got my reference to Planet of the Apes. That quote was from the DVD insert that EXPLAINED the MOVIE because it was so convoluted. The problem was it still didn't make any sense.

I do agree that Depp is a great actor though, if anything it would be worth it just to watch his interpretation of the character. Maybe he would even laugh and smile a bit ;)

-Scott

[livius drusus]

Oh woops. Yeah, I totally missed that, Scotty. Sorry. :blush2:

[Scotty]

Oh woops. Yeah, I totally missed that, Scotty. Sorry. :blush2:

Oh no biggie, I just wondered if anybody would pick it up.

:D

-Scott

[beyelzu]

I guess nobody got my reference to Planet of the Apes. That quote was from the DVD insert that EXPLAINED the MOVIE because it was so convoluted. The problem was it still didn't make any sense.

I do agree that Depp is a great actor though, if anything it would be worth it just to watch his interpretation of the character. Maybe he would even laugh and smile a bit ;)

-Scott
nah, I got it I was just ignoring you.

:D


I was actually wondering where the quote came from. I have to say that trying to paste on some shitty explanation for a retarded plot is pretty fucking sad.

[viscousmemories]

I totally missed your post, Scotty, but I wouldn't have gotten it anyway. I never saw the DVD extras and I blocked that whole movie from my mind.

[Corona688]

Not that it's going to be a bad movie, by all appearances it's going to be at least watchable.

But... don't they have any other ideas? Seriously, a readaptation of a movie adaptation of a 40-year-old book? Even if they must yank someone else's concepts, has there been no interesting literature written in the last four decades?

Oh, right. Battlefield Earth. :sadcheer:

[Godfather]

I guess nobody got my reference to Planet of the Apes.
I knew you were talking about Planet of the Apes, but I just though you were succinctly paraphrasing the whole bullshit pseudo-scientific justification for the movie's chronologically illogical plot. I mean, I know there are theories about the possibilities of relative time dilation, but Marky Mark just flew through some space dust - big deal. To jump from that to Aperaham Lincoln requires some fairly mighty suspension of disbelief.

I do agree that Depp is a great actor though, if anything it would be worth it just to watch his interpretation of the character. Maybe he would even laugh and smile a bit ;)
Assuming it turns out more or less how we all imagine it will - ie if Tim directs like Tim and Johnny acts like Johnny - I predict we'll be able to say one thing about it at the very least: Roald Dahl would have liked it better than the 1971 film. If that's the case, I promise not to hate it.

[livius drusus]

He he... Aperaham Lincoln...

[Bella]

I'm thinking my perspective on the subject is somewhat tainted by my <ahem> young age.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the book, is very different from Gene Wilder's film. First off, the title: Dahl intended the focus of the book to be on Charlie, not Wonka and his wonderful machinery. When I watch the film, I get the idea that we're supposed to be bowled over by the "wonderful, simply wonderful!" things contained inside the factory. When I read the book, all I see is the nasty children and their equally nasty parents set against the factory's facade of wealth and innovation. Why does Charlie prevail against the others? Because his happiness is borne out of sheer simplicity - a tour of the factory and in the end, ownership of the factory, is just icing on the cake.

I didn't get the feeling from the book that Wonka was deliberately trying to weed out the nasties by having some strange malady befall them. I felt that he was simply placing the children in environments which would show their true characters (and their parents' as well - remember Slugworth and his offer of $$$ for the Everlasting Gobstopper?) and therefore eliminate them. I don't honestly think he was trying to harm anyone on purpose - he just chortles with glee when what goes around, comes around. I got a whiff of genuine malevolence from Wilder.

Having grown up without TV or the cinema, I would read my books over and over again and visualise the action in my head. I have a feeling that this version of Charlie will mesh much better with my preconceived ideas from the book - more subtle acting from Wonka, a less Dickens-esque Charlie. I'm expecting great things from this film.

[Adora]

Because his happiness is borne out of sheer simplicity

Now I remember why I hate Dahl books. *shudders* That man had SERIOUS ISSUES.

[pzmyers]

The first movie creeped me out. Granted, I watched it at age 30 and not 13, and this may be the source of my discomfort.

Willy Wonka kills children. He kills them. He's smarmy and creepy and he kills children.

No children are killed in the book or movie, just mangled and mutilated. But it's OK, because they deserved it.

It's pretty much standard Roald Dahl fare. He never hesitated to have his characters meet grisly and unpleasant fates.

At the time I watched it, I pretty much just discovered IIDB and was very into my STRONG atheism. There's a lot of Christian allegory in the story that I find a little disturbing.

I don't see that, and as the parent of 3 kids I've read all of the Roald Dahl books. Most of them have a strongly anti-authoritarian, anti-materialist theme running through them, and they tend to be very dark in tone--it's an ugly, mean world out there, kids, and you're going to have to be clever and resourceful and true to yourself if you hope to make it. But there isn't much religion, if any, in any that I can recall.

[livius drusus]

I don't see that, and as the parent of 3 kids I've read all of the Roald Dahl books. Most of them have a strongly anti-authoritarian, anti-materialist theme running through them, and they tend to be very dark in tone--it's an ugly, mean world out there, kids, and you're going to have to be clever and resourceful and true to yourself if you hope to make it. But there isn't much religion, if any, in any that I can recall.

I agree. I love Roald Dahl (and I'm not just saying that because he replied to my fan letter when I was in 5th grade and to the entire 5th grade class the year after when my former teacher read them "The Witches" in class and encouraged them write to him), from C&TCF to his own autobiography "Boy" which cleared up quite a few things for me. I honestly can't think of a single religious allegory unless you see the whole tour of the Wonka's factory as a kind of jab at the Divine Comedy.

Hmm... Actually, now that I think of it, that might make for a rather amusing comparison.

[wei yau]

Having not actually read any of Dahl's books, I'll defer to those who have and therefore know better.

I stand by my opinion that the first film was creepy. But, again, I've qualified that opinion as much as I can.

Still, I plan on seeing this remake.

BTW: My wife pointed out that there's a remake of one of the songs from the first film being played on the radio lately. I can only assume it is from this new movie version. Although, it does seem a bit early to be released. I don't think the new movie premieres until July.

[livius drusus]

I stand by my opinion that the first film was creepy. But, again, I've qualified that opinion as much as I can.

Oh, yessir. Sorry, I was only speaking to religious themes in the books. I've never seen the movie myself so I have no idea if it's creepy or not.

BTW: My wife pointed out that there's a remake of one of the songs from the first film being played on the radio lately. I can only assume it is from this new movie version. Although, it does seem a bit early to be released. I don't think the new movie premieres until July.

That is pretty early even for today's marketing "synergy". Do you know the name of the song?

[Ronin]

I'm thinking my perspective on the subject is somewhat tainted by my <ahem> young age.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the book, is very different from Gene Wilder's film. First off, the title: Dahl intended the focus of the book to be on Charlie, not Wonka and his wonderful machinery. When I watch the film, I get the idea that we're supposed to be bowled over by the "wonderful, simply wonderful!" things contained inside the factory. When I read the book, all I see is the nasty children and their equally nasty parents set against the factory's facade of wealth and innovation. Why does Charlie prevail against the others? Because his happiness is borne out of sheer simplicity - a tour of the factory and in the end, ownership of the factory, is just icing on the cake.

I didn't get the feeling from the book that Wonka was deliberately trying to weed out the nasties by having some strange malady befall them. I felt that he was simply placing the children in environments which would show their true characters (and their parents' as well - remember Slugworth and his offer of $$$ for the Everlasting Gobstopper?) and therefore eliminate them. I don't honestly think he was trying to harm anyone on purpose - he just chortles with glee when what goes around, comes around. I got a whiff of genuine malevolence from Wilder.

Having grown up without TV or the cinema, I would read my books over and over again and visualise the action in my head. I have a feeling that this version of Charlie will mesh much better with my preconceived ideas from the book - more subtle acting from Wonka, a less Dickens-esque Charlie. I'm expecting great things from this film.

Great post, Bree...sums up my view of the books as well.

The fact that the new movie poster has the taken the title "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" bodes well that this won't be a "remake" of the film per se. Rather, it looks to be a more faithful (sorry, Goliath :wave: ) adaptation of Dahl's story.

Personally, I'm not so big a fan of Burton as I am of Depp.

More info on the cast:

Credited cast:
Freddie Highmore .... Charlie Bucket
Johnny Depp .... Willy Wonka

rest of cast listed alphabetically
Helena Bonham Carter .... Mrs. Bucket * Yes! More eye "candy" *
Ty Dickson .... Oompa Loompa
James Fox
Jordan Fry .... Mike Teavee
Garrick Hagon .... Denver Reporter
Stephen Humby .... Crowd
David Kelly .... Grandpa Joe
Christopher Lee .... Willy Wonka's Father *?* WTF?
Missi Pyle .... Ms. Beauregard
Annasophia Robb .... Violet Beauregarde
Deep Roy .... Ommpa Loompa
Lance Smith .... Oompa Loompa
Harry Taylor .... Mr. Gloop
Noah Taylor
Philip Wiegratz .... Augustus Gloop
Julia Winter

Oh yeah...I'll be going.

:wave:

[viscousmemories]

Oh cool. I've been in love with Helena Bonham Carter since Fight Club.

[wei yau]

That is pretty early even for today's marketing "synergy". Do you know the name of the song?

A Google song lyrics search tells me it's "Pure Imagination"

Come with me
And you'll be
In a world of pure imagination
Take a look
And you'll see
Into your imagination

We'll begin
With a spin
Traveling in the world of my creation
What we'll see
Will defy
Explanation

If you want to view paradise
Simply look around and see it
Anything you want to, do it
Want to change the world
There's nothing
To it

There is no life I know
To compare with pure imagination
Living there
You'll be free
If you truly want to be


Further searching reveals that it's not from the upcoming film. It is a version covered by Maroon 5 (ugh) for a benefit album, "Mary had a Little Amp". I had associated the two because my wife mentioned the song in reply to me telling her about the upcoming film.

[livius drusus]

It's a little insipid, if ya know what I mean. The fact that it won't be in the upcoming movie speaks well for it. :)

[Ronin]

It's a little insipid, if ya know what I mean. The fact that it won't be in the upcoming movie speaks well for it. :)

Wilder, in my view, pulled off the song without a hitch and made it endearing and adventurous.

<still can't believe there are people who have never seen this movie>

:eek:

Y'all have seen The Wizard of Oz...right?!

[livius drusus]

I've seen it. :yup:




But I kinda hate it a bit. Sorry. :sorry:

[Ronin]

I've seen it. :yup:




But I kinda hate it a bit. Sorry. :sorry:

Well, I'll overlook it this once.

:whup:

What's your feel for Caractacus Potts?

:cointoss:

[livius drusus]

Was that the slave rebellion on Vesuvius dude? :muskteer:

[beyelzu]

I've seen it. :yup:




But I kinda hate it a bit. Sorry. :sorry:


Im confsued

I've never seen the movie myself so I have no idea if it's creepy or not.

[viscousmemories]

She's talking about the Wizard of Oz in the first quote, Willy Wonka in the second.

[beyelzu]

She's talking about the Wizard of Oz in the first quote, Willy Wonka in the second.
damn thats what I get for posting high, fuck. :blush:

[viscousmemories]

She's talking about the Wizard of Oz in the first quote, Willy Wonka in the second.
damn thats what I get for posting high, fuck. :blush:
That's weird. I would think posting high you'd understand liv better. :D

[livius drusus]

Hey! You'll both get confsued by my attorney if ya don't watch out. :hmph:

[LadyShea]

Now that I see that Burton is doing his version from the book most probably, and not as a remake of the movie, I am actually quite excited to see it.

There are some movies that are great in and of themselves, even though they veer off from a great book, like The Shining. I felt that way about this project, great book, great movie, but quite a bit of distance between them (great post Bree, I forgot how much I loved the book. Gonna read it again).

[Bella]

(great post Bree, I forgot how much I loved the book. Gonna read it again).
Thanks :). As soon as this thread surfaced I dug out my old copy and re-perused at leisure. Liv, I must say that your idea about the tour of the factory recalling Dante's trip through hell made this, my adult reading of the novel, much more interesting ...

[Ensign Steve]

Sorry to resurrect this 2-months dead thread, but I got linked to it from my new thread on the same film and even though I said I wasn't touching this one, there are some things I just have to reply to and/or add. Okay so I'm a big liar. Sue me.

Scotty: I didn't understand your Planet of the Apes comment, and I would have asked you to clarify but you already did 2 months before I got the chance.

I can't believe no one mentioned the ever-orgasmic The Nightmare Before Christmas among Burton's triumphs! Damn, I hope this new Charlie movie is a musical. I lurves me some Danny Elfman. He does the music for (almost?) all of Tim Burton's films, and sings beautifully as the voice of Jack Skelington in Nightmare. I like Depp well enough, but a lobotomized ape could play Wonka and I would still go based on the Burton/Elfman ticket.

Edit: I saw an interview with Ron Howard about Grinch where he said that people kept asking him why they didn't pick Burton to do that film. He was all hurt and whiney and said, "Because they picked me, okay?!" LOL (shoulda been Burton)

[viscousmemories]

I can't believe no one mentioned the ever-orgasmic The Nightmare Before Christmas among Burton's triumphs!
Huh. I was so sure someone had I just searched and then re-read the first page. Weird.

Funny story about Richie. :P

[livius drusus]

That's Opie. Opie Cunningham.

[viscousmemories]

Aunt Bee? Is that you?

[Ensign Steve]

Huh. I was so sure someone had I just searched and then re-read the first page. Weird.

That sentence hurts to read.

Yeah, I was so surprised by the omission that I re-read the thread, too, just to make sure.

[viscousmemories]

Did you miss a period?
Why, do I look pregnant?

Ha! Caught you.

[Ensign Steve]

Ha! I changed it when I realized a comma would also have worked, but I'm glad my menses joke wasn't deleted into oblivion.

[viscousmemories]

Well for what it's worth I would've acknowledged the need for a comma, but I couldn't pass up the joke.