Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
April 21, 2010
Image Size
6.9 KB
Resolution
99×56
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
8,785 (1 today)
Favourites
126 (who?)
Comments
692
Downloads
50
×
Willy Wonka SUCKS :Stamp: by KooboriSapphire Willy Wonka SUCKS :Stamp: by KooboriSapphire
:iconreadplz: Yes you may use this

If you love the old one & hate the new one then turn & leave right now.









































Last chance to turn & leave if you're a fan of the old one & hater of the new one.































































Ok to put it simple for you all; only God knows how much I hate this movie.

Or another way of putting it; My hate towards this movie is like the the universe, ever expanding.

Now you can continue on reading this or not if the past two sentences weren't enough for you.


That’s it! I’m sick of it! I’m tired of all the fans of the old one waahhing to me on my opinion over the new Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. What? I like it & I say it’s better than the old one & stood closer to the book (and it is) & they can’t handle it!? If you like the old one, I'm fine with that. But those people that almost wanna murder me because I love the new one are the ones that pissed me off enough to make this stamp!

I don’t even know where to begin on how horrible this sad excuse for a book-adaption is! I fucking hate this movie, I HATE IT!!! You wanna know how much I hate this movie? I wish I could grab a metal bat, go back in time & beat the living shit out of all the people who ruined this movie (including Dahl [but not as hard as I would beat everyone else]) & send them to the hospital. That’s hate right there. Or to put it simpler, only God knows how much I HATE this movie. I would so rather watch some darker version of a kids movie/book/art/poem than some cheesy, plain kids story/movie/poem.

I hated this movie since I was a kid! I read the book, loved it, & heard there was a movie to it. My mom rented it, & I watched it with her. I was scared shitless by those Oompa Loompas, & then got pissed off on how far it was from the book. I even told my mom to tell off the people who made this movie. Looking back at it, it was stupid. But hey I was a kid then. I also don't know why Dahl would ruin his own book by making the plot & story so shitty & predictable! And then I decided to look at the movie again now that I was older to see if I could like it. No, I ended up almost coughing out my own lungs on how horrible the movie was (& I’ll explain everything on that movie shortly).

No one in my family, but my little cousin, Carmen, likes this movie. I honestly have no idea where the hell that Golden Egg scene, those horribly written songs & Oompa Loompa designs, & that fizzy soda scene came from (just to name a few unexistant scenes).

I saw the new one, loved it, & it stood so much closer to the book than that shit-fest 70s one. And no, I didn’t go see it & liked it because Tim Burton did it. I loved that movie (as well as all of his other previous films) WAAAAYYYYY before I became a Burton fan. In fact, I never even knew at the time the new one came out that it existed. My aunts rented it for the kids, & I decided to watch it with them. And wow, I ended up adoring it (this was way before I ever got into movies). It stays loyal to it's source, & even did a better job with the original ending.

And what really pisses me off about why people like the old one is because they always say the same shit; “OMG I’m a huge Gene Wilder Fan &…..” “Johny Depp is no Gene Wilder” “Gene Wilder made the movie so fun, wild, & unpredictable, & funny! Johnny Depp was acting like Michael Jackson he's not supposed to be acting like that!” “Gene Wilder…Gene Wilder….Gene Wilder”…Gene Wilder, Gene Wilder, Gene Wilder, Gene Wilder, Gene shut the fuck up about Gene Wilder! He isn’t a comedic God! That’s all I hear from you people, in fact, I think that’s the only reason you people love the old one, because of Gene Wilder! Like a movie for how it’s done, not for the actors!

Now lemme explain how horrible this movie is:

Cast & acting : I think the only person who wasn’t a miscast & bad actor was Gene Wilder, he played the character exactly as the book, but even so, he got boring & sooner started to look like some child molester. As for the rest of the cast & characters….where the hell did they get them from? Acting camp? No one in there seemed to have been taking their roles seriously. They were all taking their acting & characters like a joke. And that’s another thing, the characters & their acting. Charlie looked like some kid who already knew he was going to get what he deserved after he got that dollar. His grandfather sounded rude & arrogant. Augustus Gloop looked tall, skinny, & athletic; not the fat, repulsive boy he was described as. Violet looked more like Augustus. And in the scene where she begins to inflate is probably where she acts her worst. She began to say “I feel funny” when she was ready to burst & yet before that, she showed no signs of pain throughout any part of that scene, she was smiling as she inflated! Veruca looked like some preppy school girl more than she did a spoiled one. And her father smiled when she fell down the bad egg chute…..what kind of dad smiles after seeing his daughter falling down a chute!? And let’s finally get to Mike. He looked more like & acted more like a fan of cowboy movies & more polite. Not rude, & smart-ass like he was described.

As for the Oompa Loompas, askmissa.com/wp-content/upload… that is not an Oompa Loompa, that is something a constipated alien shitted out it's ass after eating a box of roseart crayons. www.reply-mc.com/wp-content/up… That's an OOmpa Loompa, that is what they were described in the book, & that's what an Oompa Loompa should look like.

You have the right to pick whichever you like better, but this here is my opinion on why I hate the characters & the movie.

Willy Wonka - Gene Wilder Wonka twogirlsonebrain.files.wordpre… Now, Gene Wilder played his role/character exactly like the book, well somewhat. But sadly, his look was boring, & looked rather like he'd just reached into his basement & grabbed whatever old rags he found to wear. And Wilder's performance became boring & soon started looking like some child molester. He sure was interested in those kids. Another thing, his performance was so bland at a certain point that I would have preferred some other actor like Dustin Hoffman to have played the role.

That being said, Gene Wilder's Wonka character is just unrealistically kind & accepting to the rotten kids (who aren't even rotten to begin with in this movie). I mean, he's way to nice to a spoiled brat, an over-achieving girl, a greedy & gluttonous boy, & an annoying -ass TV addict. At least Johnny Depp managed to be rude to those kids like they deserved to, & for a good reason, which brings me to my next point on Deep's performance nicely.

Johnny Depp Wonka 4.bp.blogspot.com/-an4vBH4Ni4o… Johnny Depp's Wonka may have changed, mainly due to the subplot & background on him, but that was the point. Roal Dahl would have wanted that seeing that he also HATED how in the old one it focused so little on Wonka. But the other thing, this Wonka is almost like Michael Jackson in performance, because frankly, in the book he was described as almost insane. He is rude to the kids & to Charlie's grandparents, & for a reason. He has isolated himself from the outer world for so long, that it is hard for him to be nice to people he's never met, & plus, his father was an asshole to him. Another thing, he's rude & realistic, especially to the rotten kids (who actually ARE rotten in this movie), because they deserve it. At least Johnny Depp can act & keep someone entertained rather than the nostalgia fags who only like Gene Wilder's Wonka simply because it's Gene Wilder.

You can say the same to me because this Wonka is played by Johnny Depp, but no, I like this Wonka, because he's insanely funny, & extremely realistic in characterization. And you know what? when I first watched this movie, I didn't even know that was Johnny Depp playing Wonka, I really didn't. When I read in the Wikipedia credits to who plays what character, I was almost left astounded when I saw that Johnny Depp was Wonka, it didn't even look like him.

Charlie Bucket: www.templetoncc.com.au/charlie… This insolent little prick deserves to have his head pounded by a brick. He is not only annoying, but an ungrateful, selfish moron who doesn't deserve to have won in the end. blogstruk.com/wp-content/uploa… Now this Charlie right here is a better role model for kids, despite the fact that he could even be the new Jesus :noes: While some kids may disagree with some of the things he says about parents, he gives good morals to others, & actually looks kindhearted & full of spirit.

Grandpa Joe: asset-server.libsyn.com/assets… Ok, he may be somewhat of a good Grandpa, but this grandfather is rude & arrogant (& he can't sing either). www.alicia-logic.com/capsimage… This grandpa Joe looks older & a little creepier, but he's nice, & funny.

Violet Beauregarde: 1.bp.blogspot.com/_0WwzBF2YaWU… This Violet not only looks more like she could have been a better Augustus, but looks nothing athletic, determined, or confident, & is also a horrible actress. l.yimg.com/eb/ymv/us/img/hv/ph… This violet not only looks like everything the old Violet wasn't, but also acts like it too, & not to mention she kicks ass.

Veruca Salt: 3.bp.blogspot.com/_ygnKxktO6tM… I'll give the actress who played the old Violet credit for playing her character right, but the problem with the old Violet was that she looked nothing spoiled, instead, she looked like some preppy school girl. images.broadwayworld.com/photo… The new Veruca Salt not only plays the spoiled brat role right, but she looks spoiled right away without a doubt, & not to mention that she pouts her mouth exactly like all spoiled girls do when they say "Want!"

Mike Teavee: www.humanforsale.com/images/mi… Ok for real, this Mike looks nothing like a rude, smartypants, at all, nor does he look like a fan of video games & television, in fact, he just looks like a better Charlie Bucket for the old one. gb.cri.cn/mmsource/images/2005… DO I have to say more? He's got that rude, smart-ass & tv obsessed look on his face, & even plays the role even better.

Augustus Gloop: unrealitymag.com/wp-content/up… Ok first off, this kid doesn't look fat, at all, even with that plate of spaghetti. Secondly, this kid doesn't look repulsive, instead he looks more like a kid who goes to a very high class school. And third of all, he could have been a better Violet for the old one, because he looks athletic & slim. themomblog.ocregister.com/file… The new Augustus looks repulsive & obese just by looking at him. Enough said.

Old Violet's Parent: moviemikes.com/wp-content/uplo… Ok this guy doesn't look anything like Violet's father, in fact, he just look like Some Pee-Wee Herman reject. Honestly, who would believe that a girl like Violet would be caught with her dad? Let alone even a dad looking like that?

New Violet's Parent: www.2flashgames.com/photo/file… She's hot, athletic looking, looks a lot like her own daughter, & you could totally picture her going with her own daughter to the factory.

Old Veruca Salt's parent: www.britmovie.co.uk/wp-content… Couldn't find the right picture of Roy Kinnear so that one will have to do. Anyways, that guy right there looks nothing like a rich man, at all. He could be the dad for the old Violet for that matter! He's too big & the fact that he laughed when his own daughter fell down the egg chute just shows how much of a 'good dad' he is.

New Violet's parent: www.alicia-logic.com/capsimage… This Mr. Salt looks fancy, wealthy, & rather comical. He's a well devoted father who panders to his daughter's every fucking needs & doesn't realize that until the end.

Augustus's old parent: s11.allstarpics.net/images/ori… Ok she looks like the right role for Mrs. Gloop, & that's only because her own son doesn't even look like what he was supposed to.

Augustus's new parent: www.thelin.net/laurent/cinema/… She's a perfect fit considering that she looks like her son & also is big, but she also plays her role perfectly.

Mike's old Parent: image2.findagrave.com/photos/2… If anyone actually bought this character/actor as a geography teacher, then I feel sorry for you. She is better off playing the role of some house mother or another character in an Alfred Hitchcock movie. She looks nothing like a mother or a geography teacher.

Mike's new Parent: www.thelin.net/laurent/cinema/… Ok now this guy not only looks like the perfect geography teacher, but can also be a geometry teacher. He looks rather nerdy & father-like. You can't go wrong with him.

Effects: The majority of them were advanced for their own time, but some of them were at their most laughable points. I think the worst scene was the TV room where they showed the particles/atoms moving above them. Last time I checked you’re not supposed to see particles in the air, no matter how fictional something is. The chocolate river was a terrible effect. Anyone that is smart could obviously see the water with a dirty brown food coloring. They could have used something to make it thicker.

oliviadrab.typepad.com/.a/6a00… WTF is that?! That's not an everlasting gobstopper! That is a bad piece of origami that a rock shitted out after its constipation! And I swear that thing could kill someone if swallowed & choke on or thrown at.

Sadly, as advance as the effects in the movie were for their own time, they are overshadowed by the effects in the new one. And don't come by giving me "The effects in the new one suck" or "The new one was nothing more than a cheap cgi fest!!" no, no, bull fucking shit.

The new one only used a handful of cgi effects, mainly on the glass elevator scenes, a handful on the squirrels, & a few others. The rest of the factory was all enlarged props & scale models, & that chocolate river was made of 192,000 tons of melted candy.

Scenery: images.allmoviephoto.com/2005_… That is what a chocolate factory should look like. Tasty, lickable, mouth watering, & where everything literally looks eatable. billsmovieemporium.files.wordp… wtf is is that?! That's not a chocolate factory, that's a stupid kids day care & a pedophiles dream lure, & Gene Wilder is the kids' child molester. The whole factory is supposed to be CANDY! The shitty 70s factory had FERNS & BUSHES, BRICK roads, giant inflated BALLOON lollipops, giant PLASTIC gummy bears, BEACH BALLS, & PAPER MACHE trees!

Plot & story: The movie's plot is predictable & the story is laughable. Now as for those of you complaining how the new one had Wily Wonka was the main character, I'm getting to that. Now, the old one had Charlie as the main character, which is how it was, but it had very little focus on Wonka, & that's one of the reasons Dahl really hated about the movie, the little focus on Willy.

Now the new has Charlie as the main character for the first half of the movie, & then for the next half, it focuses on Willy Wonka as the main character. Burton did that not only because that's usually what he does with a character played by Johnny Depp, but also because Dahl wanted more focus on Wonka. And I myself actually wanted to know more about Wonka as well.

Music/Score: www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqjI2A… Ok that has nothing close to a chocolate nor factory-like feel to it, at all. It sounds like some over-dramatic shit, & has the sound of a marching band & some cliche drama film. And don't even get me started on those annoying, poorly written Oompa Loompa songs.

As for Danny Elfman's version of the songs & score, they're all well done. Sure some of the score sounds a little dark due to the added chorus, but that's what I like. Elfman captures the feel of any movie with his music. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqjnmN… That has both the factory & chocolate feel to it. Not only that but it has Elfman's signature dark chorus added to it, making it perfect.

Faithfulness to its source: It doesn’t even deserve to say “Based on the book by Rohald Dahl”. IDK where they got that Golden Egg scene, those Oompa Loompas, that floating, bubble scene, & those horrible songs.

The ending to the old one stood exactly like the ending in the book, yes I’ll admit that, but even then I still don’t like it anymore :) I didn’t even like how it ended in the book; it was too cheesy for me. Burton’s one actually gave a lesson to kids, would they give up their family for some Factory & all the candy in the World? I don’t think so. Hell I would have, screw my life & family, I would’ve taken the deal anyways.

And as for those who are just gonna say ¨Oh, well that´s just your opinion & just because a movie doesn't stay close to the book doesn't make it bad, & just because the new one stays closer to the book doesn't make it better!¨ No, you can kiss my ass. I'm tired of you hypocrites saying all of that bullshit, but yet I see you all saying ¨I hate Disney movies because they don't stay close to the books!!¨. FUCK THAT SHIT! The old one sucks major ass, whether you compare it to the book or not. And the new one is far superior, ESPECIALLY compared to the old or not.

And all of you can go ahead & say I have terrible taste in movie or I don't know what a good movie is for hating this shitty movie, I'll not only know further I'm right, but also showing how stupid this movie's fanbase is, & I can clearly use those same terms against you for liking this shitty movie.

But what I am TIRED of hearing form these fans is that the new one sucks compared tot his one. NO IT DOESN'T! The new one is not a terrible movie, compared to the old one or not (even though the only one that DOES suck compared to one another is the old one). If you think one movie sucks because of comparing it to the other , then you, you fail at reviewing something. Watch a remake/readaption for what is is. When I watch a remake or whatever, I watch it & both compare it to the original version & then I see it as a standalone film, because the original source is one thing & this is another. I've seen SHIT films that are terrible whether you compare it to the original source or see it as a standalone movie (A Nightmare on Elm Street). But NOOOOO, you people just HAVE TO COMPARE the new one to the old one all the time don't you?! If the new one is a terrible movie, then Batman & Robin is superior to The Dark Knight.

Shit movies I'd rather watch over this: The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, The Return of Jafar, FernGully 2, Terminator Salvation, The Jungle Book, Chicken Little, Cars, Meet the Robinsons, Ratatouille, most of the shitty Disney straight to DVD sequels, Jaws 4, A Troll in Central Park, Bones, Amusement, & so many, many more!

My Final Score for this movie: :star:0/100:star:

I can't believe they changed the title as well. I really hate that old film & the more people bag on me for hating it, I hate it even more (though I don’t know if I’s possible to hate more than I already do). Hands down, Burton’s version is superior in every way. This movie lands on #2 of the top 3 WORST musicals I have ever seen (the other two being Camp Rock, & Oliver), one of the worst kids movies ever made, tied with Eragon on my list of the worst book adaption movies I have ever seen in my life, & #1 on my list of the most hated movies list. This movie was so bad that Roald Dahl not only hated it, but refused to sell the rights for a sequel. Thanks a lot Mel Stuart :|

Note: Don't bother sending me some critic's review or that Nostalgia Critic's review on this movie because I will NOT AGREE WITH THEM, & you'll just make me hate the old one more. And to all of you fantards of the old one who are gonna come by "Well you're wrong, the old one is still better", no, no I'm not. This movie sucks dick, in every way, even as a stand-alone film.

You have all the right to disagree with me, but if you deny how bad the acting was, then I'm sorry, I can't respect your opinion. You also don't have to change your mind about what you think about the old one after reading this. You can still like the old one if you want to.

Best bottom line review movies.yahoo.com/mvc/dfrv?mid=…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rankings:

Most Hated Films: #1

Worst Book Adaptions: #1 (tied with Eragon)

Worst Kids Movies: #1

Worst movies I have ever seen: 50/50

Worst Musicals: #3

Worst 70s movie: #1

Most laughable films: #5

Note: Just because it's #1 on my Most Hated Movies list, doesn't mean I think it's worse than the others on that list. I just hate it more than others, not think it's worse than them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:icontransparentplz::icontransparentplz::iconwillywonkaplz:
:icontransparentplz::icontransparentplz::iconstabmyheadplz:
:iconwillywonkaplz::icondontstabmeplz::iconwonkaplz::iconstabmeplz::iconwillywonkaplz:
:icontransparentplz::icontransparentplz::icondontstabmyheadplz:
:icontransparentplz::icontransparentplz::iconwillywonkaplz:

:iconwillywonkaplz::icongunplz::iconwonkaplz::iconexitplz:

:iconwillywonkaplz::iconminigun1plz::iconminigun2plz::iconwonkaplz::iconoompaplz::iconminigunouchiesplz:

:iconwillywonkaplz::iconkillitwithfire::iconwonkaplz::iconkillthatwithfire::iconwillywonkaplz:

:iconwillywonkaplz::iconprojectilevomitplz::iconwonkaplz::iconprojectilevomit2plz::iconwillywonkaplz:
Add a Comment:
 
:iconpippy1994:
Pippy1994 Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I just hate the movie because it terrified me as a child, I still haven't been able to watch it again DX
Reply
:iconadoptz-for-you:
adoptz-for-you Featured By Owner Dec 1, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I don't know why,but this movie scares me! o.o
Reply
:iconadam-walker:
Adam-Walker Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2014   Writer
Which one? The 1971 film or the 2005 film?
Reply
:iconadoptz-for-you:
adoptz-for-you Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Both
Reply
:iconadam-walker:
Adam-Walker Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2014   Writer
Why both?
Reply
:iconknopor:
knopor Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2014  New member
I find it ironic how suggestions relating to this stamp are for fundamentalist ideals.
Reply
:iconkooborisapphire:
KooboriSapphire Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2014  Student General Artist
Irony indeed.
Reply
:iconsonicgirl1552000:
Sonicgirl1552000 Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2014
Agreed. The new one is better.
Reply
:iconwakaandmariovore1:
WakaandMariovore1 Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah the new one is SO much better. This one is okay (Those oompa loompa songs make me want to kill something though)

And, I hate Violet with a PASSION!
Reply
:iconadam-walker:
Adam-Walker Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2014   Writer
The old Willy Wonka may have been Gene Wilder but he looked more like Eric Idle. Because movie.
Reply
:iconponylover5:
PonyLover5 Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Wasn't this like the origins of the, Blueberry Fetish?
Reply
:iconknopor:
knopor Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2014  New member
Sadly, yes. Inspiring sick fucks for a whole generation.
Reply
:iconkooborisapphire:
KooboriSapphire Featured By Owner Sep 28, 2014  Student General Artist
:shrug: wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Reply
:iconxxthewakavorefanxx:
XxtheWakavorefanxX Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I prefer the new one BY FAR!

This one's okay at best.
Reply
:iconremradioheadfan96:
REMRadioheadfan96 Featured By Owner Sep 23, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
I prefer the new one myself.
Reply
:iconpaula712:
Paula712 Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2014  Student Filmographer
I love the new one better than the old one!
Reply
:iconpinkprincesstaylor:
PinkPrincessTaylor Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2014  Professional Artist
>=c
Reply
:iconjustaloverofhumanity:
I hate this movie as well. But I'm not a big Roald Dahl fan, except for Matilda. His books always creeped me out.
Reply
:iconkooborisapphire:
KooboriSapphire Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2014  Student General Artist
Well his books weren't always the most kid friendly.
Reply
:iconjustaloverofhumanity:
True, but maybe I actually enjoy the dark stuff more. Like I enjoy Harry Potter as a psychopath fanfiction. I just adore it. :D I've grown to like darker things as I've grown older.
Reply
:iconsia-the-mawile:
Sia-the-Mawile Featured By Owner Aug 10, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
The new film is great! The old one is boring.
Reply
:iconi8toomanyoreos:
i8TooManyOreos Featured By Owner Aug 7, 2014
Finally, someone gets it. The book was amazing, it's too bad they ruined it with that 1971 movie. This is also solid proof that not all old movies are great and not all remakes are terrible. I love what you said about the old Violet as a better Augustus. :giggle: So true.
Reply
:iconkooborisapphire:
KooboriSapphire Featured By Owner Aug 7, 2014  Student General Artist
It's a shame that most people continue to use "I grew up with it" as their excuse when that doesn't automatically make something better, much less any good.
Reply
:iconchivalryss:
chivalryss Featured By Owner Jul 16, 2014
ouch!  I thought it was excellent
Reply
:icongreenwavesinactive:
GreenwavesInactive Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2014
Personally, I think it's important to judge a piece of work on it's own rather than comparing it to other things, and as long as something accomplishes what it's trying to do, it counts as good to me. I actually really enjoyed both movies, and thought each of them did something that I could enjoy.

However, I do also think that the point of film is nothing more than entertainment, and different people can get different things from it. Just because I liked aspects of the old movie doesn't mean that you have to at all. You do make some very valid points here, and I think it's important for people to let you have an opinion. It's just a film, after all, and as long as it doesn't do anything to hurt anyone, there's no reason anyone should have to like or dislike it. So, while I still enjoy it, I'll definitely respect your hate for it.
Reply
:iconmuzozavr:
Muzozavr Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2014
As a standalone film, my main problem with the film (tonal inconsistency aside) was the ending, specifically the parts that start with Charlie stealing the fizzy lifting drinks. Grandpa Joe teaches Charlie a terrible lesson, Charlie steals without a second thought, then Charlie gets a chance to redeem himself when none of the other kids get that chance... and Wilkinson was human, so I don't know why Wonka even needed Oompa-Loompas in the first place. There are just SO MANY problems with all that convoluted nonsense in the end. Had the movie ended in any "normal" way that doesn't break all logic and characterization in the span of 25 minutes, I'd remember it as decent. I'd still massively prefer Tim Burton's version, of course, because it's just all kinds of awesome, but really, that ending in the old one... man, oh man. Up until the 1971 Wonka film, I've never seen a movie sabotaging itself so thoroughly in its final moments.
Reply
:icongreenwavesinactive:
GreenwavesInactive Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2014
Well, good for you I guess. I wasn't really looking to debate this. It's just a film, so I don't care either way. I have problems with both versions and things I dislike about both versions. So to each their own. It doesn't really make a difference to me.
Reply
:iconmjdisneygirl:
MJDisneyGirl Featured By Owner May 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Hey, did you know that Charlie is being adapted into a Broadway musical? My friend just made a post about it on her Tumblr. I suggest you check it out and tell me what you think: filmcityworld.tumblr.com/post/…
Reply
:iconkooborisapphire:
KooboriSapphire Featured By Owner May 30, 2014  Student General Artist
There's not much in the trailer but the singing. Other than that I'm glad it's actually being based on Roald Dahl's piece.
Reply
:iconmjdisneygirl:
MJDisneyGirl Featured By Owner May 30, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah, but still, you approve! Excellente! Phew! w00t!

If you like the songs, here's the full playlist: www.youtube.com/playlist?list=…
Reply
:iconkooborisapphire:
KooboriSapphire Featured By Owner May 30, 2014  Student General Artist
Thanks, I'll check them out.
Reply
:iconmjdisneygirl:
MJDisneyGirl Featured By Owner May 31, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Awesome! Looking forward to hearing what you think of them. I love how brutally honest you are. :D
Reply
:iconmislav383:
Mislav383 Featured By Owner May 17, 2014
I really don't have a preference when it comes to those two movies.
Reply
Hidden by Owner
:iconmuzozavr:
Muzozavr Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2014
"Note: Don't bother sending me some critic's review or that Nostalgia Critic's review on this movie because I will NOT AGREE WITH THEM, & you'll just make me hate the old one more."

Considering that this was in the description and your link is just NC's "Old vs New" review, YOU are the one immature enough to fail reading comprehension.

Also, old film sucked. Objectively. End of story. The ending is even more terrible than I originally thought and actually contains a giant morality plothole in what's supposed to be a moral play. This just recently occured to me, in fact, it might finally give me a push over the edge needed to write my own negative review. Remember how Slugsworth approached Charlie saying "he'll ruin me" about Wonka? At this point, Charlie has no idea that this is, in fact, Wonka's test. We don't know either, we think Adrian Slugsworth is a real person and not connected to Willy Wonka.

Well, WHO DESERVES MORE PITY? An insanely successful guy for whom the everlasting gobstopper is just another invention or someone who is possibly at the brink of financial ruin?

It'd only work (sort of) the way the filmmakers wanted to if they could stick to the bizarre fairy tale logic of the book, but they can't even do THAT. The movie constantly tries to be realistic in all the wrong places, with Wonka asking everyone to SIGN A CONTRACT (I have no words on how wrong this is in what is supposed to be a fairy tale) and so on. So, REALISTICALLY, the good thing to do would be to hand the gobstopper over to Slugsworth. This is not a matter of subjective "like/dislike" anymore, this is just plain old logic and the movie contains a gigantic moral hole in the story. THIS is BAD, this ENDING is BAD!!! The last 25 minutes of the 1971 film in general feel as if the movie shoots itself in the foot but somehow ends up shooting its balls off. Real nice aim. They couldn't even FAIL gracefully, everything happens against characterization and common sense, Charlie steals, Wonka SHOUTS, Wilkins is a human worker SO WHY DOES WONKA NEED OOMPA LOOMPAS LOL and, as it has recently occured to me, there's also a gigantic moral plothole. Fuck this ending... it's so bad.
Reply
:icontacom4ster91:
Tacom4ster91 Featured By Owner Apr 25, 2014
If Slugworth was real he would say hyperbolic things to win the sympathies of child (just like you), and also that's just capitalism, is Willy Wonka supposed to handicapped himself to give a free pass to his competitors? Competition creates progress, here Ron Swanson to explain Capitalism www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6c7Vw6R33E

However I dont consider Wonka too be a toal Ayn Randian, he gave jobs to people of a starving back-water country

Anyway I dont give a shit, art to me is Subjective, it's all about perspective and artistic merit. That's why I enjoy Paul Verhoeven's Basic Instinct more than Hitchcock Vertigo, not based on a supposedly Objective thing (Now you really sound like you know who) www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTk5VeIK2os, but based on personal preferences and artistic merit (Ps Vertigo is Verhoeven favorite Hitchcock movie, art continues, just as Tim Burton looked back at the old film for inspiration)

I don't care if you one film more than another, but to steamroll your opinion as a fascist, I find morally disgusting. Grownups learn to discuss, debate, and respect each other opinions, your acting like a spoied brat
Reply
:iconmuzozavr:
Muzozavr Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2014
I haven't seen Vertigo nor Basic Instinct, though, considering their status, I really, really should.

It's clear that Willy Wonka wouldn't hand the gobstopper over... but should Charlie's decision be as immediate and "black and white" as the old film PRETENDS it is?

If the movie took a few seconds and an inner monologue... hell, ANYTHING to show a conflict between keeping his word and pitying someone who may or may not be a liar, I'd be OK with this decision. But it doesn't. The movie simply chooses to ignore the issue entirely when it's convenient. That's what REALLY sucks. Considering that he has stolen the fizzy drink right before, it doesn't even make sense.

"just as Tim Burton looked back at the old film for inspiration"

He looked directly at the book for inspiration. Granted, the old film may have inspired him in terms of "wait, this sucks, I have to do better". Burton hates the old film. He even hired a scriptwriter that has never ever seen the old film. It's one of the reasons I consistently call Burton's film a readaptation, or just simply a "version". Because such an approach is not how you do a remake.

Anyway, I still think that if you're to see a good film based on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Tim Burton did a much better job... if you're to see a heartwarming fairy tale in the "older" style, there's Fleming's "Wizard of Oz". Both choices are, IMO, infinitely superior to what the 1971 Wonka film actually is.
Reply
:icontacom4ster91:
Tacom4ster91 Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2014
Well Burton had Batman kill, so he's not the best adaptor, he doesn't even read comics www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKbAEmvZyKQ

Also you once again just sidestep from my statement on art just so you can bitch, I though I made it clear that art is mostly about personal preferences with that Vertigo reference, but it seem you just like acting like a child
Reply
:iconmuzozavr:
Muzozavr Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2014
I think in context of any discussion about art, the argument "art is subjective" is (usually) simply an attempt to weasel out of discussion. It's technically true but it renders arguing about anything artistic completely pointless. If you're using this argument, that means you just don't really want to argue. Well, then DON'T ARGUE. It's as simple as that.

Also, Tim Burton loved "The Killing Joke" and used that as basis. There's even a Burton quote on the back of that comic. So you can't say Burton *never* reads comics. Kevin Smith was exaggerating. As for having Batman kill, I've never read Batman, but typing "is there a comic where batman kills" in Google got me this link: www.cracked.com/article_20111_…

I'm not sure how accurate or in-character these descriptions are, but considering how comics work, there's probably enough leeway for Burton (or anyone) to do pretty much whatever the hell they want. The comic has been through so many different eras and visions... apparently including things that would seem sacrilegious to most fans.

Plus, how is Batman filmed in 1980 relevant to Charlie filmed in 2005? It's been 25 freaking years. And Batman is something Burton encountered later on, while Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was one of his favorite books during his own childhood. It makes sense that he adapted it again, especially because he didn't like the older film. Neither did Dahl, but everybody knows that.
Reply
:iconmuzozavr:
Muzozavr Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2014
I goofed. Batman was filmed in 1989, so it's been 16 years between the two films. Still quite a lot.
Reply
:iconlightningdraco:
LightningDraco Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2014
I agree with you on the characters and the oompa-loompas and the factory itself. The music in the old one was a bit cheesy, but it was ok. The oompa-loompas in the old one looked like something that could give you nightmares or just simply creep you out! Who made that idea of making them look like that?! :ohnoes: I agree with what you said about the new Willy Wonka! XD He and Michael Jackson DO have something in common! The old one was just a bipolar crazy slash calm looking one with not much personality with no backstory. The new one was a hilarious, silly guy who has been through a bit of a rough time growing up.

I would rate Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory a 5 out of 10
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a 9 out of 10!

The new one was the best and one of the funniest movies I've ever seen! XD
Reply
:iconmuzozavr:
Muzozavr Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2014
I was reading this again and noticed this part:

"I also don't know why Dahl would ruin his own book by making the plot & story so shitty & predictable!"

Because he didn't. Even though Roald Dahl was the only credited scriptwriter, he actually was unable to finish his script in time. The studio took the script away and hired a ghostwriter (David Seltzer) to rewrite the script. He added all the non-Oompa songs, he added the Slugworth subplot, he added that fucking stupid ending. Dahl himself hated this movie so much that he postulated that movie rights to "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator" (the sequel book) shall never be sold to anyone, even after his death. That's kind of sad, I think I might've loved a Tim Burton rendition of the glass elevator book. Sure, it was 110% weirder than the chocolate factory book but that's part of the reason why I like it.
Reply
:iconmuzozavr:
Muzozavr Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2014
I agree with your opinion totally with one exception -- I think you've got your Wilder and your Depp reversed. I mean, the characters. I also prefer Depp's Wonka over Wilder's, but I think you're misunderstanding them both. Sure, Depp's Wonka acts rude, but he shows genuine human concern... at least sometimes. A simple "You look hungry" said to Charlie has a much bigger effect when we know about Wonka's past. The way he at least attempts to warn the kids. Violet in the old movie wasn't told to spit the gum out until she started becoming a blueberry. Violet in the new movie was warned long before.

Wilder? IMO, his Wonka is a fucking monster. Sure, he acts charming, but beneath the surface is a demented sociopath. I love "Pure Imagination", it's a great song, but have you ever listened to how... depressed Wilder sounds when singing the end to it? He almost sounds bored with his own imagination. The way he says "Stop. Don't. Come back!" that almost sounds like "Stop. Don't come back!" and without an ounce of care in his voice. The way he says "Two spoiled, nasty little children gone... three sweet, good little children left". It's quite terrifying. The book, BTW, continued that last phrase with something like "I think we should move on before we lose anyone else!", so the 1971 shitfest flipped that phrase on its head, turning concern into threat.

Wilder's Wonka knows how to act as the definition of "classy" and "elegant", but beneath that lies a character malevolent beyond all reason. Depp's Wonka is realistically awkward (except for literally choking on the word "parents", I thought that's the only part that felt forced and too over-the-top, but the entire rest of Depp's performance is amazing) but beneath the surface is a surprisingly likable character.

To put it simply, I'd be afraid to turn my back to Wilder's Wonka in fear of sudden backstabbing. Turning my back to Depp's Wonka (as long as I don't do anything stupid and don't break the rules) is perfectly safe as long as I'm ready to have my back used as a place for silly drawings and paper stickers with weird and incoherent messages. Depp's Wonka WILL have his fun at all costs, but his definition of fun does not include backstabbing.

I watched both movies during the final grade of my school, so I wasn't a kid anymore and I wasn't blinded by any sort of nostalgia. I first saw about 15 minutes of Burton's film and then saw the older film, then I saw all of Burton's film. I loved Burton's version as soon as I saw those first 15 minutes. The old movie was meh and boring until Wilder arrived. As terrifying as he is, I'll have to admit that he's damn funny and the best thing in the entire picture. In fact, he ALMOST manages the impossible task of making the 1971 movie not suck... that is, until the last 25 minutes and the fizzy lifting drinks scene, when everyone breaks character and the viewers are left with one of the most insulting endings I've ever seen. Plus, I wouldn't feel safe leaving Charlie (or ANYONE) in the company of Wilder's Wonka.

I'd say that the old movie is maybe sort of kinda but not really worth watching just to see Wilder being funny and creepy as hell... but the Tim Burton version is, IMO, the definitive one. I actually like it a bit better than the book.

The one thing that REALLY disturbs me about the old movie is what they did to the kids. They downplayed everything, trying to make the characters more realistic. But the plot was left intact, so in the 1971 film, realistic characters receive comically exaggerated punishments originally intended for comically exaggerated characters. This kind of disproportionate retribution does not sit well with me AT ALL.
Reply
:iconkooborisapphire:
KooboriSapphire Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2014  Student General Artist
That was a fantastic write.
Reply
:iconmuzozavr:
Muzozavr Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2014
Oh, and as someone who has seen it, I'd seriously rather rewatch "Plan 9 From Outer Space". It's a hilariously stupid movie, but there isn't a single moment that I'd call ethically disgusting or character breaking. The 1971 Wonka film, OTOH, is full of those.
Reply
:icondalegribble3000:
dalegribble3000 Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Seriously, you think that Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was the worst film ever made? Off the top of my head, I could name at least 20 films that are worse than that, by far.
Reply
:iconkooborisapphire:
KooboriSapphire Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2014  Student General Artist
I never once called it THE WORST film ever made. ONE of them, not THE worst. I can name 30 others a lot worse than it.
Reply
:icondalegribble3000:
dalegribble3000 Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
You said in your review that it was the 15th, now you're saying there's 30 films out there worse than this, you obviously don't keep your numbers right. Worst film of the 70s, this film takes that place www.imdb.com/title/tt0138074/ it's called Santa Claus and the ice cream bunny. BTW, there's like 10 musicals that are worse than this. Worst kid's film, you clearly haven't seen many of them. And worst book adaptions, there's more than 5 that have poorer adaptions.
Reply
:iconkooborisapphire:
KooboriSapphire Featured By Owner Mar 15, 2014  Student General Artist
Typo. Fixed. And when it comes to musicals, no, it's easily up there with the other terrible ones with generic, repetitive sounding songs that didn't even evolve well over time.
Reply
Add a Comment: