Burton's "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" teaser poster (1 Viewer)

[Brian Kidd]

I'll give Depp the benefit of the doubt. He has yet to fail to impress me. The man is one of the great actors of our time. Even if the movie blows chunks, I have no doubt that Depp will rule. The Oompa Loompa is kind of fun. Still, the '71 version has the award for nightmare fuel OL's.

 

[Ray H]

So is the Wonka candy brand gonna change their logo to look like Depp now?

Also, I don't think I can picture Willy Wonka without songs.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

The problem is so many people are looking at this like a remake.

This is going to be influenced by the book more than anything. That means bizarre, dark, and songless.

 

[Ron-P]

This is what I have heard as well. There is no way to judge this movie from just a couple of pictures. Nor can it be judged as a remake considering the first was not much like the book.

So far there could not be a better director behind this, a better actor to play WW nor a better composer for the score.

 

[PaulP]

In the interview on the Forbidden Zone DVD Danny Elfman mentions that he's already written several songs for this film. So don't expect it to be songless.

 

[Ray H]

Sweet.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I may be wrong, but I do seem to remember the Oompa Loompas singing songs in the book. But it has been a few years since I read it.

 

[Dave Miller]

Anybody read or hear any interviews w/ Burton lately? Has he stated that he see this as a reimagining of the first movie (ala Planet of the Apes) or just a movie more faithful to the book?

I would have guessed the Oompa Loompas would be CGI. Obviously I'm wrong.

Peace,

DM

 

[Doug Miller]

I'll see this, because knowing Burton's work, it's guaranteed to be odd. (Which can be fun.) But, to be honest, the original is pretty odd, not to mention magnificent.

Doug

 

[Travis_S]

Teaser Trailer on Yahoo:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/featu...tefactory.html
It looks...bizarre.

 

[Rich Romero]

Wow, strange.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Scott Frank said it was going to be an adaptation of the book without reference to the other movie, but he's not credited any more.

 

[Jason Adams]

Hm...to nitpick, that chewing gum crack was said kinda wrong. A bit too sing song-y. But I do like the set design and cinematography.

 

[Jordan_E]

Man, I really like that teaser trailer a lot! Depp never ceases to amaze me.
"Chewing gum is really gross...chewing gum I hate the most..."

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Wasn't too thrilled. Some shots, like the bed one, look ripped right from "Willy Wonka &..." and others just looked wrong. I don't like the oompa loopas. I do like that the TV-oholic is now a video game freak, however. Nice update. Also, Violet Beauregarde's wearing blue

 

[Jason Adams]

And pink. And what the hell did they do to the Oompa Loopas? Why do they look like a 60's pop group?

 

[GuruAskew]

The whole "remake vs. reimagining argument" is ridiculous. It's just an endless loop of semantics and excuses. You have to remember that long before Tim Burton tried to convince himself that "Planet of the Apes" wasn't a remake, he tried to convince himself that "Batman Returns" wasn't a sequel to "Batman". That's right, if you have the "Batman Returns" DVD you can read a quote by the man himself where he expresses the laughable notion that the second movie in a series featuring the same actors playing Batman, Alfred and Gordon, and the same Batmobile, is not a sequel. Regardless of what anyone says, if you adapt something that has already been realized in the same medium, you are producing a REMAKE, regardless of whether or not you are bypassing the earlier adaptation and re-interpreting the source material or if you're using the other film as inspiration. Burton laughably tried to claim that "Apes" wasn't a remake. There are quotes from Burton early in the production of "Apes" where he maintained that he was totally ignoring the original film and going straight to the source material. Having seen the final film, you would have to believe that Burton independently created the concept of an American astronaut as opposed to a French explorer and a more primative ape society, and that he must have just coincidentally hired Charlton Heston and Linda Harrison. Now, don't get me wrong, I am absolutely not condemning remakes. I think "Red Dragon" rights a lot of the wrongs in the vastly over-rated "Manhunter". I actually liked "Vanilla Sky" a lot (although I wouldn't necessarily say it's better than "Abre Los Ojos") and I hear the "Dawn of the Dead" remake is a lot of fun. I've never seen the Ealing "Ladykillers" but I love the movie the Coens made. Also, I'm a huge Burton fan ("Apes" excluded. As a huge fan of the "Apes" series as well, that movie was a monumental disappointment for two reasons).I just think that it's absolutely absurd to deny that something is a remake or a sequel. Mel Stuart made a "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" adaptation. Burton is now making one. Hence: REMAKE! There are obviously different levels of the remake (a shot-for-shot remake like Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" is obviously a more severe case than the Joel and Ethan Coen's "The Ladykillers") I think there's a lot of merit in this remake. I love the original "Willy Wonka and..." but I'm familiar with Dahl's disappointment in the film and I think Burton is the perfect choice to take a crack at it. People say he's past his prime but I would say that "Apes" is his only bad movie ("Mars Attacks!" and "Sleepy Hollow" are less-than-amazing but underrated) and "Big Fish" is possibly his greatest achievement. When a director's most recent movie is amazing and he's attached to a project that obviously suits him, I can't help but give him a chance. The trailer looks great, too. I'll definitely be there on opening night.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Trailer!

 

[David Galindo]

Whoa. Thanks for the heads up Scott!

That trailer just freaks me out. Should be great

 

[Chris Farmer]

I'd disagree with you Bill about two movies from the same source material being re-makes. A re-make in my mind tries to take the original film and update it. However, the original WWatCF was a pretty big departure from the book in many ways. If you take the same book and try to make a movie directly from the book and ignore the stylings of the original movie, then it's not a re-make, but rather another interpretation of the same source material. Just like this year's Phantom of the Opera isn't a re-make of the Lon Cheney movie but a drastically different take on the same source material. At least that would be my interpretation of the term "re-make."

As for the trailer, it's downright disturbing.