A
Anonymous
Guest
LiveForTheLaunch said:
Whoops :shock: , very sorry. It deems as an excuse for me to watch Wwatcf again, preferably with subtitles this time.
Willy Wonka vs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
- Thread starter LiveForTheLaunch
- Start date
Whoops :shock: , very sorry. It deems as an excuse for me to watch Wwatcf again, preferably with subtitles this time.
LiveForTheLaunch
CF Legend
Wait, huh? I was just stating Oompa Loompa as singular when referring to CatCF because there really is only one, but it's just duplicated. I used a plural for the ones in Willy Wonka because there is actually more than one, haha.
I'm so lost.
silenthillXD
Hyper Poster
Tim burton and Johny Depp are awesome. I personaly prefer the dark side and the gritty humor. Who can honestly say they did'nt laugh at the canibalism bit! ^^
Slash
Giga Poster
Willy Wonka all the way. The reason? Firstly Gene Wilder played a more convincing Wonka, he didn't seem to be pushing the role or over acting like Depp did. Secondly, the sub plot in the second film detracted from the film, it was just plain boring. Thirdly, it did seem more realistic in the first one.
And lastly and most importantly, Willy Wonka had an unbeatable charm about the film, it made every person smile at the end. Coming out of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I just wanted to get out.
All in all, rating these as films and not likenesses to books. Willy Wonka is the shizzle.
And lastly and most importantly, Willy Wonka had an unbeatable charm about the film, it made every person smile at the end. Coming out of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I just wanted to get out.
All in all, rating these as films and not likenesses to books. Willy Wonka is the shizzle.
Chris Coasters
Strata Poster
Willy Wonka is 10x better than the new version. I can't stand the new one at all its just not a good movie.
Mark
Strata Poster
Re:
I don't think a person having read the book makes the opinion matter any more, but you also have to appreciate that for those that have read it, it is nearly always going to be their frame of reference. If they have read the book how can they not take it into account in some way or other? So to say that it is a 'gay' (I'll scold you for the use of the word gay later
) arguement is actually a little bit unfair!
I hated 'Willy Wonka' because I watched it after having read the book. In fact, I actually sought out the film because of the book. Except what I saw was nothing like what I had imagined as a child in any way. Gene was not the Wonka I imagined, the factory wasn't this wondrous place of magic I had imagined and whole swathes of the story were dissapointingly different.
Now don't get me wrong, 'Charlie' is not perfect either. I was a bit pissed that Burton felt the need to add in all the dentist references (something that isn't revealed until they are flying around space in the Great Glass Elevator - and why hasn't that been made yet grrrrr) and the ending, true to Burton form, is a butcher job. However, as an overall piece, it was far closer to the tone, style and storytelling that I first imagined when I read the book and therefore, for me, it fulfilled my expectations far more.
So no, having read the book does not make a more valid opinion but its not something you can just shrug off either.
Ian said:
I don't think a person having read the book makes the opinion matter any more, but you also have to appreciate that for those that have read it, it is nearly always going to be their frame of reference. If they have read the book how can they not take it into account in some way or other? So to say that it is a 'gay' (I'll scold you for the use of the word gay later
) arguement is actually a little bit unfair!I hated 'Willy Wonka' because I watched it after having read the book. In fact, I actually sought out the film because of the book. Except what I saw was nothing like what I had imagined as a child in any way. Gene was not the Wonka I imagined, the factory wasn't this wondrous place of magic I had imagined and whole swathes of the story were dissapointingly different.
Now don't get me wrong, 'Charlie' is not perfect either. I was a bit pissed that Burton felt the need to add in all the dentist references (something that isn't revealed until they are flying around space in the Great Glass Elevator - and why hasn't that been made yet grrrrr) and the ending, true to Burton form, is a butcher job. However, as an overall piece, it was far closer to the tone, style and storytelling that I first imagined when I read the book and therefore, for me, it fulfilled my expectations far more.
So no, having read the book does not make a more valid opinion but its not something you can just shrug off either.
I think the issue is something to do with what I will call "The Shining Factor".
It's complicated, because the book is obviously the most "pure" source material. If a book is adored, then by rights, the film should follow the book as closely as possible. It's arrogant to think that you (as a screenwriter/director/producer) can re-write a popular and well written book to meet your own needs.
Hence why Willie Wonker disappointed you Mark.
However... And here is "The Shining Factor". When Kubrick made The Shining, the simply took the basic story outline and the "feel" of the book and then re-created what he believed was the important parts of the story.
Yes it was arrogant, but it's a bloody fantastic film. Stephen King famously abhorred it and wanted to be disassociated with it. Yet look at the Stephen King films that follow the books almost exactly... They're piss poor (except his "non-horror", Shawshank and Green Mile). This includes the remake of The Shining, which was incredibly faithful to the book, but it complete failed to engage in any way the fear brought on by the book. Parts that are exceptionally scary in the book are near laughable in the new film.
Sometimes, directors understand that a book will not translate well to the screen and make the changes required to make the film work.
Of course the problem is that if (like CatCF) you're very loyal to the source AND it's not an awful film, but it's also not as good as a reworking (like Willy Wonker). If there was only CatCF, then you could say "the film may not appeal to you, but at least it's faithful to the book". However, with the (perhaps) superior Wilder version, where do you stand?
It's a valid point to say "it's better because it's closer to the book", but it doesn't make it automatically right. It' IS one of those annoying "I'm right because I'm more worthy than you" arguments, but it doesn't always stack up and in this case it definitely doesn't - it can be used to justify your opinion, but not argue why somebody else is "wrong"
It's complicated, because the book is obviously the most "pure" source material. If a book is adored, then by rights, the film should follow the book as closely as possible. It's arrogant to think that you (as a screenwriter/director/producer) can re-write a popular and well written book to meet your own needs.
Hence why Willie Wonker disappointed you Mark.
However... And here is "The Shining Factor". When Kubrick made The Shining, the simply took the basic story outline and the "feel" of the book and then re-created what he believed was the important parts of the story.
Yes it was arrogant, but it's a bloody fantastic film. Stephen King famously abhorred it and wanted to be disassociated with it. Yet look at the Stephen King films that follow the books almost exactly... They're piss poor (except his "non-horror", Shawshank and Green Mile). This includes the remake of The Shining, which was incredibly faithful to the book, but it complete failed to engage in any way the fear brought on by the book. Parts that are exceptionally scary in the book are near laughable in the new film.
Sometimes, directors understand that a book will not translate well to the screen and make the changes required to make the film work.
Of course the problem is that if (like CatCF) you're very loyal to the source AND it's not an awful film, but it's also not as good as a reworking (like Willy Wonker). If there was only CatCF, then you could say "the film may not appeal to you, but at least it's faithful to the book". However, with the (perhaps) superior Wilder version, where do you stand?
It's a valid point to say "it's better because it's closer to the book", but it doesn't make it automatically right. It' IS one of those annoying "I'm right because I'm more worthy than you" arguments, but it doesn't always stack up and in this case it definitely doesn't - it can be used to justify your opinion, but not argue why somebody else is "wrong"
Hahaha, the point (made many moons ago now!) I was sarcasticly making was about the whole "purist" attitude that comes with a book over a film. Books are regarded as more intellectual (and in many ways, they are) because they prompt the reader to imagine the characters, locations, situations, interactions and so on. A film is often instant - BANG! The whole scene can be reflected in 5 seconds rather than 5 pages of text.
What irritates me is that people who read the book and watch the film rarely view them as separate entities. Does it really matter if a film doesn't match the book? No, because a film is a different way of telling the story. It might not be the best way, but it's a different way.
I dislike the snobbery involved with books and subsequent film adaptations. I may not have read the C&TCF book(s) but I've seen the film(s). That's good enough for me. I know the plot, the characters and I was mildly entertained for about 90mins. I think that puts me a good position to compare both films but, obviously, not the books.
What irritates me is that people who read the book and watch the film rarely view them as separate entities. Does it really matter if a film doesn't match the book? No, because a film is a different way of telling the story. It might not be the best way, but it's a different way.
I dislike the snobbery involved with books and subsequent film adaptations. I may not have read the C&TCF book(s) but I've seen the film(s). That's good enough for me. I know the plot, the characters and I was mildly entertained for about 90mins. I think that puts me a good position to compare both films but, obviously, not the books.
I actually read CatCF after watching both films :lol: I've never been a big Dahl fan (except the Enormous Crocodile).
Suddenly the film makes a lot more sense and works better when you understand the source it has come from. It's actually a good "book-film conversion". In this case, it explains why things are the way they are, but you shouldn't have to have read a book of something to enjoy the film. It's like when I thought Avengers Ensemble (or whatever it was called) was a bit pants, everyone was like "well have you seen all the other Marvel films before it?". No, and I shouldn't have to sit through 10 hours of other films to enjoy this one (though having now sat through the 10 hours of other films they're right, it does make The Avengers much better, but not a much better as it would have been with Uma Thurman )
So yeah, you're right anyway Ian. You should always treat a film differently to a book, but it's incredibly hard to do because books (as you pretty much say) play as a film inside your head. So it'slike you've already seen the best version of that film there could ever be.
I try to treat it much like I do cover songs. If it's very close to the original and it's still good - then fine. If it's utterly different, don't write it off straight away, sometimes being very different shows different talent and you may get more out of something.
Suddenly the film makes a lot more sense and works better when you understand the source it has come from. It's actually a good "book-film conversion". In this case, it explains why things are the way they are, but you shouldn't have to have read a book of something to enjoy the film. It's like when I thought Avengers Ensemble (or whatever it was called) was a bit pants, everyone was like "well have you seen all the other Marvel films before it?". No, and I shouldn't have to sit through 10 hours of other films to enjoy this one (though having now sat through the 10 hours of other films they're right, it does make The Avengers much better, but not a much better as it would have been with Uma Thurman
)So yeah, you're right anyway Ian. You should always treat a film differently to a book, but it's incredibly hard to do because books (as you pretty much say) play as a film inside your head. So it'slike you've already seen the best version of that film there could ever be.
I try to treat it much like I do cover songs. If it's very close to the original and it's still good - then fine. If it's utterly different, don't write it off straight away, sometimes being very different shows different talent and you may get more out of something.
Mark
Strata Poster
furie said:
That pretty much sums it up for me. For me it is one of the source materials that I grew up with from a very young age. Now, ask me to compare the Harry Potter books and films and I couldn't give a rats arse. The Harry Potter books are incredibly fun reads (for me) and I enjoyed them because they got my imagination going and I generally enjoyed the journey and so on. The films I also adore, seeing that world and so on. In some instances, parts of the films are actually better than the books BECAUSE of what they cut out or because of the pace in which a part of the story is told. However, I will be honest and say that what I find most irritating is when they add stuff that wasn't even alluded to in a book.
It can work both ways really. For instance there was stuff throughout the HP series, which could have been included from the books because it would have actually given better (not necessarily more) or clearer exposition. There were scenes not included that would have rounded certain scenarios off moreso. However, Order of the Phoenix, for example, as a film benefits from being able to cut whole huge swathes from the book.
Personally I actually prefered Silence of the Lambs as a film way more than as a book. The book I found incredibly difficult to engage with. I daresay there are a lot more 'stories' out there that actually work better as a film. Heck, the Lord Of The Rings series is also a good example. If there was ever justification for why film editors exist, the extended versions are it! Those huge chunks were cut for very good reason, even if does mean a huge chunk of the book is missing.
What I am getting at is, just because someone dislike a film because they've read the book doesn't necessarily mean snobbery at all! For me, I just preferred the more recent CATCF to WWATCF because it was more faithful to the source material (which awakens that bit of nostalgia from my childhood) and I thought it was a far more interesting, exciting and fun film to watch.
nadroJ said:
Topic smocic
Oddly... I used to adore his Tales of the Unexpected as a child. Though yes, I loved the morbid humour he had in that series. However, as a child, the only books I read were Douglas Adams and then only very rarely. I never used to really read until I was 14 or so and then I was "too old" for Dahl. I had to pretty much force myself to read CatCF just because it's one of those things (like reading Dracula) that I knew I had to do eventually in my life - just because it's such a core element of other things I enjoy.
nadroJ
CF Legend
I've asked for the box set of Tales of the Unexpected for Christmas this year haha!
But even things like....Matilda and George's Marvellous Medicine...they're so creepy and weird! I love how when you read his books as an adult you can kind of see behind the stuff that's meant for kids and there's a real adult, morbid sense of humour there too.
But even things like....Matilda and George's Marvellous Medicine...they're so creepy and weird! I love how when you read his books as an adult you can kind of see behind the stuff that's meant for kids and there's a real adult, morbid sense of humour there too.
Crazycoaster
Giga Poster
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsE0UOz1uw4[/youtube]