Charlie... And Also A Chocolate Factory

[GregMcduck]

Fizzy Liftng drink was mentioned, but plays a smaller and different role then in thr movie.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

there was none of this hokey backstory with Wonka's father in the book.

The 2005 adaptation did not make any changes that were not in tune with the tone of the book. The added story elements are excellent.

I'd even go as far and say the changes made in the 70s Chocolate Factory [...] actually improved the story, changing it from Charlie winning the factory in a deadly reality show-style game to Charlie earning the factory by his own means.

You just do not know what you're talking about, do you?

[doggans]

The 2005 adaptation did not make any changes that were not in tune with the tone of the book. The added story elements are excellent.

I wouldn't say that. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the 2005 version of the film, but the subplot about Wonka's relationship with his father was cliche, tired, and frankly, removed any mystique the character once had. Even if that subplot did have the funniest bit of the movie (the "Flags of the World" gag).

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

what? book? this is a remake of willy wonka, Gene Wilder said it himself

it is all about money. It's just some people sitting around thinking 'How can we make some more money?' Why else would you remake Willy Wonka?

maybe this will stop all that nonsense about a "book" (whatever that is)

[GregMcduck]

I'd even go as far and say the changes made in the 70s Chocolate Factory [...] actually improved the story, changing it from Charlie winning the factory in a deadly reality show-style game to Charlie earning the factory by his own means.

You just do not know what you're talking about, do you?

AH! I HAVE BEEN OUT ONE-LINERED! AH! Ah ah...

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

[RoninFox]

I'd even go as far and say the changes made in the 70s Chocolate Factory [...] actually improved the story, changing it from Charlie winning the factory in a deadly reality show-style game to Charlie earning the factory by his own means.

You just do not know what you're talking about, do you?

AH! I HAVE BEEN OUT ONE-LINERED! AH! Ah ah...

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

Well I got it, as much as I enjoy both movies there was a feeling in "Willie Wonka" that said that Charlie earned the factory not only because he didn't get carted away by the orange people, but because he had a chance to be rotten (by selling the gobstopper) and gave it up because it wasn't right to do.  In "Charlie" it felt much more like "Oh, you survived?  I guess you win then!"

[doggans]

But in the book (and in the latter movie) he the reason he survived was a direct result of his obedience and loyalty, so he still earned it by being "the good kid".

[RoninFox]

True, but I think the first movie and the book got that point across better.

[MSTJedi]

If we could go back and have it re-done, I honestly don't know if a true- to- the- book Willy Wonka movie would have been better than what we got, but I'm pretty sure i wouldn't blindly trade the one we got for that one. Because the one we got was unique. In it's weirdness and wit, it outshined the book it was based on, at least in the general public eye.

For a second there, I thought you were gonna mention making a remake of the Airplane! movie. Lord knows Hollyweird doesn't need any more crappy ideas put in their heads.

[bratpop]

Yeah sorry, I gotta say the original elements the 70s version added were, like The Wizard of Oz, improvements to the story insofar as making it work as a movie. Most of these kinds of books are just a journey from point A to point B. And much as I hate The Wizard of Oz, it made sense to turn silver shoes into ruby slippers for Technicolor, and the "no place like home" and dream idea with characters from Kansas was at least clever and made the story come full circle, even if it was a bit insulting.

Burton's added story elements serve a heavyhanded importance to family that is not clever at all and very cliché. Also Christopher Lee looked like a dried up old shoe.

"Sorry, I was having a flashback" is probably one of the greatest movie lines I've ever heard, and certainly illustrated how pointless and distracting it all was.

The point is that other than the backstory, which is great for backstory whores and few others, the remake (of the BOOK, if you insist) doesn't add anything as magical as it subtracts from its predecessor. The chocolate waterfall room was no more breathtaking, the Oomaloompas just looked like some Indian dude, the boat was like watching somebody else on a rollercoaster, the candy/newspaper/whatever shop was boring. If you watch both you couldn't tell me this doesn't make you miss the lickable wallpaper, the real gobstoppers (the one in this movie wouldn't even fit in Rosie O'Donnell's mouth!), the fizzy lifting drinks, the carbonated car thingy, Willy's half-office, Slugworth, any of Willy's witticisms, or of course the songs. If you took the original and took out the songs and put in the flashbacks, it would still be a better movie than Burton's.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

There really wasn't a whole lot of changes in the first adaptation that were "necessary"....take the squirrels/geese change-up. They could have done it using the same special effects as, say The Birds. That would have worked just fine. There was no point to killing off Charlie's father. There was no point to extending the fizzy lifting drinks beyond a brief reference. A lot of the added elements were really pointless. I don't miss a single thing about the '70s film. The new adaptation got it right.

[GregMcduck]

Then tell me, Isaac, what "necessary" changes did Burton make for his film?

[mrbasehart]

Well, I think the reason why Charlie's father was excised from the first adaptation is two-fold: It engenders mroe sympathy for Charlie, and it adds a new dimension to Charlie's relationship with Willy Wonka, that of the surrogate father.  It also mirrors Wonka's situation: Charlie is looking for a father, while Wonka is looking for a son.  I'm not saying this is any better or worse than the newer adaptation, but I think that's why they did it.

[bratpop]

I thought his father was pretty useless in CATCF. I wondered why he was there. It worked better when it seemed Grandpa Joe was the closest thing he had for a father figure. It's also creepier if Wonka basically adopts Charlie if Charlie already has a father. Actually the whole story is creepy because why doesn't he just have sex with a woman? Or couldn't he find a jungle where babies grow on trees? Couldn't he make a son out of chocolate? Wuzza point!

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Well, I think the reason why Charlie's father was excised from the first adaptation is two-fold: It engenders mroe sympathy for Charlie, and it adds a new dimension to Charlie's relationship with Willy Wonka, that of the surrogate father.  It also mirrors Wonka's situation: Charlie is looking for a father, while Wonka is looking for a son.  I'm not saying this is any better or worse than the newer adaptation, but I think that's why they did it.

These changes were entirely unnecessary, and were made only because the filmmakers thought they were better than Dahl. They weren't.

I thought his father was pretty useless in CATCF. I wondered why he was there.

Have you read anything other than issues of Entertainment Weekly? Your statements sound like that of someone who has never picked up a book in his life.