*** Official CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Hi Colin!

I posted my thoughts in the official review
area, but you just brought up a great point
that I missed, but bothered me greatly during
this viewing.

In the new film, Charlie wins by default simply
because there were no other kids left. It happens
rather abruptly, and I didn't care for it at all.

In the original, Charlie wins when he returns
the "everlasting gobstopper" to Wonka who realizes
the boy is morally sound.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Charlie wins by "default" in the book, too. Even more blatantly, since there is no family issue subplot.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Does everyone interpret any change from the source as being a bad thing? I don't. I really think the Slugworth subplot added to the story. If book Charlie wins by default, I prefer the ending that makes him a little more active. It's not out of character and it makes him more memorable.

Sometimes I get the feeling that people expect/demand slavish adherence to the source novels when books are adapted. I don't get that - the writers work CAN be improved upon...

 

[Jonathan T.]

True. Though more often than not the opposite is ture.

Like say, The Lost World: Jurassic Park 2 ;-)

 

[Brandon Conway]

I never gave an opinion either way as to whether the "default" version of the book/2005 film was preferred by me in that statement. So, to answer your question, no, I do not think that any change from the source material to a new medium for any work is automatically a bad thing.

However, in this case, I've always been a bigger fan of the book than the 1971 film, and one of the reasons was that, as someone else stated in this thread, Charlie screws up with the Fizzi Lifting drink and is no better than the other kids. He's simply lucky that his particular misbehavior had a delayed consequence instead of an immediate one, and therefore he got off the hook. That's how I've always seen it, and to me it takes away the purity (not "default") aspect of Charlie's character that the novel, and now the 2005 film, so, IMO, wonderfully had.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in book and 2005 film form is not about repentance, and while I can understand why some would like that element as it's presented in the 1971 film, I am not one of those people.

 

[Dustin Elmore]

Saw it today. I thought that it was pretty good, but not special in any way. The thing is that the story itself is very simple and brief. Much of what makes it worthwhile is the fantastic world that it takes place in. This new film didn't really do anything new or special with that world. In fact I thought that given today's technical ability to create fantasy, the whole factory was pretty dull. I found that to be in common with Sleepy Hollow and Planet of the Apes. There wasn't a lot of imagination used to visualize the story, every set and design seems to be the obvious choice. So while I suppose it was a good film, it was also pretty pointless.

 

[Brandon Conway]

How could you not love the look of Sleepy Hollow?

 

[RobertR]

Looks alone can't make a place exciting, something filmmakers often forget.

 

[Sean Laughter]

I'm not sure I'd say he wins by "default" as it seems pretty clear that Wonka pretty much expected all of the other kids' demises. I have no idea how it happens in the book, but the runnng joke about the rehearsed Oompa-Loompa songs pretty much makes it clear that Wonka knew all the other kids were SOL. One can then have one of two interpretations, he knew Charlie was the more moral and good child, or two, Charlie just got the golden ticket like the day before the tour, and we never see him being in the news about it, so Wonka just didn't know about him to begin with and couldn't make any prediction.

 

[Jonathan T.]

Just came back from seeing it a second time, in hope that my opinion might chnage (and I had a friend that wanted to go.)

Sadly, it hasn't, and I have a few issues I'd like to address.



It' fairly obvious, in all version of the story, that Wonka's tickets weren't so random. In Burton's version he even has Wonka mention that Mike TV "cracked the system" or something to that effect.

Now onto my final mini-review/slash rant about this movie.

I am extremely disapointed by it. One might conclude that my being a big fan of the 71 film predisposes me to such a reaction. I say bullshit. I have seen a good many remakes, and many, many times I prefer them to the original.

On my first viewing my only major problem with the movie was Depps' Wonka. That complaint reamins, but I have a few others.

-the back story, anf flashbacks to Wilbur Wonka. Not only are they totally un-necessary and add nothing to the film, they actually take away from it in more ways than one. Firstly, they detract from the mysterious nature of Willy Wonka, bringin up childhood issues weakens the character considerably Wonka should be werid purely because he is "Wonka". Secondly, they are placed at the most un-natural moments and iterrupt the flow of the film so much as to make it jarring. I found myself dreading the next flashback momnent.

-The ending of the film is something that works in a book, but seems very odd for a movie. Movies with multiple ending rarely work (Return of the Kind being an exception). The 71 movie had a much better ending.

-Depp is just plain bad as Wonka. No one could be more surprised than myself, but he is. He is downright terrible His interpretation of the character is not only unlikable, but repulsive. His stupid little giggling. It's sad really. He is handed some golden dialog, and if his delivery had been different, this movie would be twice as good as it is.

-I have very mixed feelings about the art direction. The sets are certainly fantastic, but they are just slightly too creepy for their own good. The chocolate room especially with the cnadyland set against imposing black walls it just unsettling. And in a way I think the sets are *too* fantastic. The 71 film may have had less impressive sets, but they had the advantage of appearing to be something that could actually exist. The New movies sets are so outlandish that they could never exist, and it actually takes away from the magic. It's an odd blending of cartoons and reality, and it doesn't work for me. Maybe Burton should have done this one CGI like The Corpse Bride, (which looks great, BTW.)

-Grandpa Joe, and the other parents might as well not be in the movie after we get to the factory. In the 71 movie that parents acted like parents and were suspicious of wonka. In this movie they seem to be oblivious to everything until their respective child gets mutilated, and they dont appear at all concerned when the other children disappear. It's mightly strange.

-I hated how we see all the muticlated children leaving the factory. Any suspension of disbelief is shattered. Wonka should be arrested, and would be. The 71 film was wise to leave this abiguous.

-Charlie does win by default. And I don't think it works at all. It is also very, very abrupt. Charlie in the 71 film may not have been the charlie from the book, but despite what others said he certainly WAS better than the other kids. He was polite, and kind. He did take fizzy lifting drinks, but it made him human. Dahl is one of my favourite wristers of all time, but he should never be accused of creating realistic characters. If Burton was so determined to stick to the book, he should have made a cartoon.

On a possitive note: The oompas loompas songs are ftnastically weel done. Danny Elfman is the best thing about this movie. If I could take these oompa loompa songs, the more realsitic looking chocolate river, and SOME of the elemts that are closer to the book, and put them in the a movie with Gene Wilder, I would be a happy man. And as happy as I was so see them stick closer to the book, I have to admit that many of the canges made to the 71 films storyline, are actually improvements to the book, there are elemtns in this movie that simply dont work at all.

 

[Quentin]

I agree with just about every one of your points, Jonathan. Except, I actually went in expecting to dislike Depp's take on Wonka and ended up liking it ok.

My two biggest problems are (as discussed here) Charlie is a cipher in this film. He's a nobody. Pure good, and good all over. Who cares? I certainly didn't. Charlie in the '71 film is EXACTLY what you stated - HUMAN. That makes him real, gives him depth, and makes you root for him. He has flaws, but his goodness comes through in the end. I actually prefer every one of the '71 changes over the book and this film. But, changing Charlie is the biggest.

The original book is more of a wild fable than a true story. No real characterization at all. Mostly just symbols. Burton decided to go with that for the kids, which led him to want to add backstory for Wonka...because at that point Wonka is the only possible character who CAN have any depth.

Unfortunately, my second biggest problem with the film is the Wonka storyline. The flashbacks do NOTHING for us. There is so very little built between he and his father, that when his father disappears I again found myself asking "who cares?"

Then, in one of the weirdest choices I have ever seen on screen, Burton actually takes the time to resolve the Wonka backstory by having him find his father and reconcile. But, at the end of the film, he's a part of Charlie's family???! What is that? It's a betrayal of the whole Wonka backstory. It essentially says, "I wasted your time with all of it." His father should have been a part of this...he should either be re-united with his father, or you could have had him find the grave of his father and have no family to reconcile with, and Charlie offers him his family. The way it is now is utter garbage.

I'll take the '71 film any day. For both these reasons, and because the '71 film has more of a sense of fantasy and whimsy. This film was antiseptic...just like its main character.

 

[Jonathan T.]

I think the reason I hate Depp's Wonka so much is because I am a fan of both the old 71 film *and* the book. In fact I am a big fan of most of Dahls books, having read them numerous times as kid. I am intimately familar with Wonka has he appears in the book, and Wilder NAILED IT!

Just to expand on my thoughts earlier as I am sitting here watching the 71 version right now.

-The 71 version understands that it is not a cartoon, and is written accordingly. They wisely decide thay Charlie's father is dead. This makes a lot of sense, as if Charlie's father was alive there is no excuse for them being as poor as they are if Charlies father has a full time job, even if it is just a factory job. They might be poor, but not cabbage soup poor.

-The 71 version does a much better job of the Golden Ticket announcement. The classroom scene is great. It also does a better job of setting up mystery for willy wonka. The creepy guy charlie meets near the gates of the factory that talks about "little men". The scientist whos computer won't telling him where the ticker is because "that'd would be cheating". In the 71 film the deperation for wonka bars is emphasized. audtions, kidnapping, ransoms, all for wonka bars. In Burton's film all you see is that silly poster and voiceover. Need I mention how obnoxious movies with narrators are?

-I already mentioned this, but in the 71 version the kids have real parents, you get real interaction between veruca and her father, and so on. In Burton's film the parents barely talk, and are nothing more than walking set pieces.

-the 71 film, grounded in the real world, makes wonkas factory seem like something truly amazing. In burton's film, the factory is on slightly more interesting than the rest of the films world. Indeed, none of the character are all that impressed by it. Actualyl, they hardly seem to acknowledge it at all. they just wander through looking dumb.

-Some people have accused wilders wonka of being wamr and fuzzy. hardly, the man seems to be insane. hes cheerful and happy one moment, and irate the next. His reactions to the kids demises are perfect, he just stands there with classic lines like "stop no, come back", and lets them go. Depp on the other hand appears to take a sadistic pleasure in watching them go.

-The boat ride sucks in the new version.

-Wonkas acts like a real person. none of this over the top disgust for the children, he obviously doesnt like them, but he greets them all warmly in the begining, and patronizes the kids and the parents like a real person would. And he has no trouble saying the world parents. Depp says parents the same way the grand high witch would say "children". Finally, I found Depps wonka spoke to the oompa loompas in a very condescending manor, they way some people talk to handicapped people.

Finally some words about movies adapted from Dahls books in general. The best of them are the ones that deviate a bit from the original story, and take liberties where ncessary. Also, the best ones are those grounded in reality. So Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory succeeds because it makes necessary chnages for the screen, the does "The Witches". The Wtiches also imporves the story by having the kid transfomred back from a mouse at the end, whereas Dalhs books leaves him a mouse forever, a curel fate for a boy that did nothing wrong. Dalh may not like the way these stories were altered, but they are still better than the books.

on the other hand, Dahl based movies that dont deviate at all, like matilda, have sucked, in my opinion.


I'll say it again, I think if Burton wanted to make a movie so close to the book, he should have made a cartoon, ala James and the Giant Peach.

I have always liked Tim Burton, but he DOES had a tendancy for style over substance, and this one definitely qualifies. I am really surprised it is getting reviewed as positively as it is.

 

[Jonathan T.]

by the way, just to be fair, not every chnage in the 71 version from the movie is good. Slugworth is a bad addition because it contradicts the fact that Wonka supposedly only employs oompa loomas.

 

[Brandon Conway]

So, out of curiosity, in animation, do you accept cases of style over substance more openly and leniently, because if that's the case your argument for Burton making this film animated instead of live action would at least make some more sense to me.

 

[Colton]

Jonathan T's review deserves a very hard applause. I agree with every point he made ... and then some. In a world of too much CGI - we get Oompa Loompa clones. Just not necessary, if you ask me. The CGI intro was bland to say the least. Depp's sour Wonka is Wilder's sweet success.

- Colton

 

[TheLongshot]

Sometimes, changes are nessicary to a book's story to make it a good movie. There were complaints about the Slugworth and the fizzy drinks in the 71 verson, but the problem is, in the book everything it though Charlie's eyes. We can't really do that in a film. We are always disembodied spirits watching the world they are in. This basically makes Charlie a non-character, since he doesn't really do anything than observe and experience.

I felt like the 71 film was viewed through the filter of children, while the 05 was filtered through the eyes of adults. There is no "sense of wonder" with the new film.

It was interesting to see what new twist they were taking on the formula, and I do like that they tried to make Wonka a guy who doesn't know how to deal with people, that he has isolated himself so much, that he almost doesn't know what it is like to be a human being. Unfortunatly, it wasn't nearly as effective as Wilder's subtle contempt for everyone.

While the original movie is flawed, it at least works in its own context as a movie. The new movie doesn't work nearly as well.

Jason

 

[Ocean Phoenix]

What was wrong with this movie? I thought it was a great adaptation of the book, and a great movie in its own right. I saw it on my 13th birthday with my parents and we were all very satisified. I think it's a good movie for both kids and adults.

 

[Jonathan T.]

So you treat "fantasy" and "animated" synonomously? A move that has fantasy elements is the same as an animated film?

How about this. Indiana Jones is is a musical. And by musical, I mean that it has a sountrack.

 

[DavidPla]

The same could be said for your love of the '71 version.

 

[Brandon Conway]

No. I'm saying that by declaring that no live action fantasy film can have the level of escapism of an animated fantasy film one mistakes a medium for a genre. Therefore, when you said that such fantasy doesn't work in live action but only in animation, I read that statement as the contradictory "such fantasy doesn't work in live action but only in fantasy." I used the quotations to designate that I was not using my particular definitions for either. Animation can be fantasy, or sci-fi, or war drama, or erotica; it can be realistic or fantastical impossibilities that are as for from reality as one is willing to dream. IMO, so can live action.