Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...

[Suh Dude]

Not anything to discuss about... but man it really sucked. o_o. I perfer the old one better. Your opinions?

 

[L]

It's out!? (search's on some random BT site)
Why was it so bad? Explain??

 

[Kasey]

I could tell it sucked from the commercials it looked queer.

 

[Half-Unit]

I think Hollywood ran out of ideas. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Longest Yard, Flight of the Phoenix, Bad News Bears, Bewitched (not really a remake, but it's not really an original idea), War of the Worlds.......... I know I'm missing a few but I think this whole remake stint is pretty lame myself. The worst part about it is that a lot of people don't even know these are remakes.

Anyway, the old Wonka is better, in my opinion.

-=EDIT=-

By the way, Swift, happy birthday.

 

[SailorAlea]

A lot of people said it was good--and much better than the original. It's a darker take on the story--one much closer to the book.

If you're judging the new one as a "remake" of the first movie, your opinion is worthless.

 

[KidMan]

A lot of people said it was good--and much better than the original. It's a darker take on the story--one much closer to the book.

If you're judging the new one as a "remake" of the first movie, your opinion is worthless.

Really? Alot of peolple said it was a remake. I myself thought it was a remake when looking at the commercials. I really can not wait to see the movie, as I do hope what you say is true.

 

[Half-Unit]

Bad News Bears isn't really a remake either. I think it's actually a sequel to Bad Santa, but under the name 'Bad News Bears", it's a remake. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a remake, maybe not direct, but a remake nonetheless. Drawing comparisons between the two movies is natural, and to say that it makes ones opinion worthless is an invalid statement and somewhat contradicting considering what you said: "A lot of people said it was good--and much better than the original."

Saying it was better then the 'original' is judging it as a remake...

-=EDIT=-

KidBoy, it's a remake in a loose sense. It's based on the book more than the first movie, but it's still a remake.

 

[KidMan]

Bad News Bears isn't really a remake either. I think it's actually a sequel to Bad Santa, but under the name 'Bad News Bears", it's a remake. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a remake, maybe not direct, but a remake nonetheless. Drawing comparisons between the two movies is natural, and to say that it makes ones opinion worthless is an invalid statement and somewhat contradicting considering what you said: "A lot of people said it was good--and much better than the original."


-=EDIT=-

KidBoy, it's a remake in a loose sense. It's based on the book more than the first movie, but it's still a remake.

Ah! Ok thank you for clearing that up. I think the book was awesome, so I can not wait to see the movie.

 

[SailorAlea]

The movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (2005) is Tim Burton's take on "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," by Rald Dahl.

The movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (1971) is Mel Stuart's take on the book.

Tim Burton's is much closer to the book. Like I said before, judging Tim Burton's take on it based on Mel Stuart's, and not the book, renders your opinion meaningless.

 

[LiteNET]

yea alea you've mentioned that pointless point many times. everyone will ahve a different opinion or take on this movie so i don't see why you should act as if your so superior about it.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

Alea, there are nicer ways to tell people they are not necessarily on point with the comparison of the old and the new one. "Your opinion is worthless" is harsh and unnecessarily rude. Remember not to let your personal feelings govern your behavior too staunchly in these sorts of things; everyone's opinion is as theoretically worthless as the next without facts or the equally permeable factor of personal reasoning.

Regardless, I personally prefer the old one. This one was closer to the book but I feel that the other one was better as a movie (For example...anyone else think the parents reacted in a rather lackluster way to their children being maimed?)

SPOILERS BELOW**********************************************

I also liked the Disco Inferno Oompa Loompas but heavily disliked the fact that it was all changed...the words were different to some extent, it seemed. The original movie's oompa loompa songs were, if I recall, lyrically synchronized to the words written in the book. Also they completely hacked out the entire portion of Wonka dissing Charlie and telling him to get lost and that he won nothing. In the book Wonka had dozens of witty illogical but irrefutable answers to the guest's smart ass questions ("What's the boot for?" "Gives it a little kick," heheh). In this one he just ignored them and repeated himself and, to be frank, seemed to be made out as an unpleasant combination of whiny and incompetent, things that I personally did not get from the book. Child-like maybe; incompetent, never. They completely butchered the sideways semi-insane genius of the character.

I don't know. I just prefer the old one notably. While it was not exactly along the lines of the book I feel that this one butchered the two primary characters far too severely for me to appreciate it (Charlie's name is in the title and he doesn't say anything for the middle hour and twenty minutes of the movie, FFS). They took away the whistle, too--wasn't that in the book? As was the World of Your Imagination song?

Bottom Line: Hair metal oompa loompa and *****ified Wonka FTL.

 

[Half-Unit]

Particularlly since the point makes no sense whatsoever. Both movies are based on the book (which I've read, btw). I've seen both movies, and I like the old movie better. I'm not "judging" the new based on the old, my preference just happens to be the old. If that makes my opinion "worthless" in your eyes, good for you.

 

[SailorAlea]

I told you that judging the new movie BY the old movie makes your opinion meaningless.

I didn't say prefering one over the other did. Justifying that the movie was 'bad' by saying "This new one was NOTHING like the old one!" is the problem--and many people do.

Judging the movie by the book doesn't mean you have to like the new one more. It's how you come to the conclusion.

 

[Eon]

And this is the point where we return back to the friggin topic and quit debating over how opinion's matter. Christ. Any more off topic posts in this thread moderator or not will result in a warning.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Kind of a coincidence. I watched the old one today w/ my girlfriend. I'm not sure if I need to see the new one in theatres. It looks like one I can wait for.

 

[Adaptus]

I've read the book (weren't there two, actually?) and loved them. I also saw the old movie but I wasn't a particular fan of that. It was nice to see how they tried to picture the grandiose and spectacular inner workings of the factory, but you could obviously tell graphical effects weren't as advanced as they are nowadays so in that part it was a little lacking. The characters weren't too accurate either, which I found to be a bit of a shame. I don't know about this new movie, I might buy it on DVD, I'm not a fan of theatres.

 

[Suh Dude]

It's out!? (search's on some random BT site)
Why was it so bad? Explain??

It was too childish for me, hardly any special effects, and if you guys are going to see it in the theatres, I would wait for the DVD....

 

[Jesus]

im still gonna go see it, and itll be judged as a movie of its own.

any film with Tim Burton directing is gonna be weird, and in case you didnt read the book, the story isnt meant to be nice and lovely, its meant to be dark and twisted. and i think Depp was casted well. so im looking forward to it.


edit: swift, they deliberately made teh film with no special effects. they wanted everything to be touchable, to get a true reaction from the actors. even the chocolate river was made from real chocolate. special effects dont make a movie >_>

and as for the remake argument:

remake
1. The act of remaking.
2. Something in remade form, especially a new version of an earlier movie or song.

to remake something, you need to use parts of the origional >_> otherwise, your not actually remaking it.

this is a new film. treat it as such. its just another adaptation of a great Rold Dahl book.

 

[suicidal_maniac]

I saw it last night. I would have liked it much better if it had the part when Wonka got pissed at Charlie. And i hated the one-man army of Oompa Loompas.

 

[Half-Unit]

Why does everyone seem to think the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is so 'dark and twisted'? It's a CHILDREN'S BOOK! I read it in 5th grade! To some degree sure, it's mysterious, but it's not as grim as everyone wants to think it is .

And Axman, please, the movie's a remake. It's a recycled idea of something that has already been done. Under your definition, that's a remake. What was remade is the idea of turning the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" into a movie. How they went about that idea is different.