Willy Wonka vs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

[furie]

Going back to Neal's post, If you watch all Tim Burton films, he over exaggerates elements, and makes bits worse. I realised he killed some of my favourite scenes from the original (The boat ride through the tunnel).

Johnny Depp (like I mentioned in my previous post) really burnt the biscuit for me. I loved Gene Wilder as Wonka, he was off the wall and obscene. Depp just played a trippier version of him. He didn't look good as Wonka either.

Okay, I'm going to rant here a little...

Those of us who have read the books aren't allowed to have a solid opinion because how closely a film follows the book is irrelevant to how good the film is. I do agree actually.

However, Depp didn't play a "Trippier version of Wilder's Wonka" - he played Wonka as he was written in the book. Also, the tunnel scene was much closer to the source material than the Wilder version.

This is where the problem is - people are allowed to say "This is better in Willy Wonka", but people aren't allowed to say (or are frowned upon for saying) "but this was better in Charlie because it's the way it was meant to be".

If Charlie was a remake of Willy Wonka - then it's a valid argument. As both are based on a single source reference though - the book - then people have to be allowed to use the book as a valid argument too. Gene Wilder does NOT play a better Willy Wonker. Willy Wonker is a character in a Roald Dahl novel and was written in a very particular way.

Gene Wilder played the character of Willy Wonker but got it wrong. Now, you can say you think that you prefer the Gene Wilder portrayal, but he was not a better Willy Wonker. I hope you get what I mean? Depp played the character very closely to how he was meant to be player - Wilder was well off.

You can't slate Depp (or Burton) for getting things right. You can slate them for making a poor film though that was right

 

[Ormerod]

I'm not comparing it to the book, I don't think realistically you can compare a film to a book because a book allows your imagination to create the character, atmosphere, and everything upon that.

A film, on the otherhand, is showing & telling you whats going on. It's like a book for the fat kids who can't be bothered to imagine. They get everything delivered to them like a pre-heated rustler burger.

On that basis, knowing I have not read the Dahl book, I remain skeptical about the Charlie & Chocolate factory film. I still believe Wilder did a better job with the character. Wonka seems better (to me) as a fairly older character and not as young looking as Depp is in the film.

 

[furie]

That's the point. If you're not going to allow comparisons with the book, then I don't think you should compare the films either.

Charlie is not a remake of Willy Wonka - so in the same way you discount the book as not being relevant to Willy Wonka - Willy Wonka is irrelevant to Charlie.

So, as those of us who have read the book are being asked to do - I ask you NOT to compare Wilder to Depp. Not to compare the scenery in Willy Wonka to that of Charlie. Etc, etc, etc.

See, I'll be honest and say I prefer (as a film) the Wilder version. It flows better and is a more innocent, light hearted, simple movie. However, Charlie is a superb adaptation of the book. It captures the slightly more obscure writing of Dahl and his fantastic sense of the absurd. The film is harder to watch because of it - it requires a little more on the part of the audience - it doesn't just spoon feed simple entertainment.

This is an issue. For an adult film, I like to have that complexity and requirement to buy into the film more. As a kids film though, I think it needs to be simple and easy.

I'm wrong though, Maxi-Minor_Furie loves Charlie and the Chocolate factory and he's the target audience :lol:

Having said all of that, I think it's easier to deal with Depp's Wonka (as with the Wonka in the book). Wonka is a bit off the wall, skittish and obtuse. Wilder doesn't really take the character far enough, so when his personality changes at the end of the film, it jars somewhat. With Depp, you know he's not right in the head, so can cope with his oddities. With Wilder, it comes across as petulance.

Okay, I just compared the two, but in terms of the character within each film, not directly against each other

 

[nealbie]

furie is right. Wilder's version of Wonka is wrong. I do like his portrayal and interpretation of the character however, but as furie has said Depp's performance (and the whole film for that matter) is much more closely tied to the source material. And therefore the better film for what it is supposed to be.

 

[furie]

Yes Neal, but Willy Wonker is a better piece of kids entertainment, which is what the film is supposed to be. In my opinion, not that of my kids

However, both are kids films and both aren't actually that good... Because CATCF the book isn't actually that good. It has its moments, but generally, it felt like it was written for eight year olds

 

[nealbie]

Well yes, I didn't say either were amazing though. Just that the latter is better than the former

 

[Jake]

That's the point. If you're not going to allow comparisons with the book, then I don't think you should compare the films either.

Charlie is not a remake of Willy Wonka - so in the same way you discount the book as not being relevant to Willy Wonka - Willy Wonka is irrelevant to Charlie.

So, as those of us who have read the book are being asked to do - I ask you NOT to compare Wilder to Depp. Not to compare the scenery in Willy Wonka to that of Charlie. Etc, etc, etc.

Yeah, but the poll is asking which movie is better, so we can do all the above as much as we want.

However, the poll is NOT asking us which one follows the book the best...

 

[Ormerod]

Jake basically summarized how I came to my opinion.

 

[furie]

That's the point. If you're not going to allow comparisons with the book, then I don't think you should compare the films either.

Charlie is not a remake of Willy Wonka - so in the same way you discount the book as not being relevant to Willy Wonka - Willy Wonka is irrelevant to Charlie.

So, as those of us who have read the book are being asked to do - I ask you NOT to compare Wilder to Depp. Not to compare the scenery in Willy Wonka to that of Charlie. Etc, etc, etc.

Yeah, but the poll is asking which movie is better, so we can do all the above as much as we want.

However, the poll is NOT asking us which one follows the book the best...

Not with things like this:

Depp just played a trippier version of him. He didn't look good as Wonka either.

See, Depp did not play a TRIPPIER version. He played the character as the character was written. His version was correct, Wilder's was incorrect. You can't directly compare Charlie as a remake of Willy Wonka - it wasn't. It's a very subtle thing. Depp was never trying to be Wilder, or to mimic Wilder. Likewise, Burton was never trying to mimic the original film. So you can say "I prefer the Wilder's Wonka to Depp's" or "I prefer the cardboard cut out factory". However, you can't say "Depp was trying to be a funnier version of Wilder" or "Burton ruined that fantastic scene from the original". Burton didn't ruin anything (and Depp didn't do anything wrong) because they were NOT basing anything on the original film.

Do you see the subtle difference? Both are based on the book - both are very different. Compare them in terms of quality of the film and what you prefer, but you can't compare them as though one is a remake of the other.

See, by doing that, you're being hypocritical. People aren't allowed to compare them to the book which they're both a remake of, but you're allowing yourselves to argue as though Charlie is a remake of Willy Wonka, which it isn't.

In terms of the film, Wilder plays a better character, but I never (even as a child) liked the way his character suddenly seems to become schizophrenic at the end. The Depp performance doesn't have that slight annoyance, but the character is much more difficult to come to terms with and is a much worse character overall.

Again, I found Charlie to be too over the top. It was just a bit too fantastic. Willy Wonka you could easily believe in the factory world, but in Charlie suspension of disbelief was heavily pushed to its limits.

See, you can argue a case for Willy Wonka without resorting to "Wonka was better because Charlie ruined the film I loved"

 

[kimahri]

I like willy wonka better because of the scary tunnel.

 

[RCF]

I think that they're both good, but for some reason, the old one is better. Gene Wilder is a GREAT actor, and he didn't seem like he was forcing his character. Depp otoh, seemed to me like he tried too hard in this one. Therefore, WW=1 CatCF=0

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

^ Gene did play a perfect Willy Wonka, which is one of the reasons why I don't like the fact that they remade the movie. I actually think I read somewhere they were about to cast someone else for the part, but something went wrong so they chose Gene instead, so whatever went wrong ended up being beneficial in the long run because he played Wonka fantastically.

 

[furie]

^ Gene did play a perfect Willy Wonka,

Gah! How? He played a good role, but how could it have been a perfect Willy Wonka? He doesn't fit the character written in the book.

Okay, so Wilder made the character his own, but if he's the only person who has played Wonka, then his character must be perfect as there is a comparison ratio of 1. 1 Wonka, 1 Actor playing him ergo he must have played the character perfectly

which is one of the reasons why I don't like the fact that they remade the movie.

Did I not mention at any point in the last three pages how wound up I am by people comparing the two when CATCF ISN'T A REMAKE?

I just broke my keyboard...

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

Gah! How? He played a good role, but how could it have been a perfect Willy Wonka? He doesn't fit the character written in the book.

Well, myself and every person that's in my behind the scenes book of Willy Wonka thinks he did an amazing job . I didn't say it reflected Wonka in the book.

Did I not mention at any point in the last three pages how wound up I am by people comparing the two when CATCF ISN'T A REMAKE?

Sorry.. The NEWER movie. Better?

 

[Smithy]

"The other one is better than the other one and I've read the book so my opinion matters more than most"

YAWN. That is such a gay argument.

That best one is the old one, there's something more charming and enjoyable about it. Seems more realistic, and I use that term very loosely.

Yes.

Gene Wilder > Johnny Depp.

Wilder's performance was brilliant. Depp's was appalling.

That's purely going off the movies, as I can't remember the book

 

[furie]

Well, myself and every person that's in my behind the scenes book of Willy Wonka thinks he did an amazing job . I didn't say it reflected Wonka in the book.

At least you got it from unbiased people

Anyway, you are the perfect LiveForTheLaunch member on CoasterForce. Nobody could do it as well as you do

Sorry.. The NEWER movie. Better?

Yes, thank you

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

^ I'm just saying, after seeing Depp perform Willy Wonka, it even solidifies my opinion further that Gene Wilder did an amazing job. I couldn't imagine anyone else playing him, is what I'm saying.

And also, not only am I the perfect LiveForTheLaunch member on here, I'm the perfect member, period

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with LiveForTheLaunch here. Even Depp can't beat the acting skills of Gene Wilder for me. And the Umpa Lumpa's in Charlie in the Chocolate Factory being the same person is just cheating, while Willy Wonka put in the effort and made them sing as well instead of just putting their voice into a vocoda.

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

^ Eugh, I actually hate the Oompa Loompa in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. He didn't even really do anything, and he just looked like a midget it an ugly suit, unlike the original Oompa Loompas (notice I used plural there) that actually had to come up with better dance routines, wear orange makeup, and green wigs .

 

[RCF]

Good use of plurals you get an A for the day! I thought the Oompa Loompas in CatCF were kinda creepy, whereas the Oompa Loompas in WW were pretty cool. In CatCF, they're white, but in WW they're orange!