Charlie... And Also A Chocolate Factory

[Petey Wheatstraw]

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

He made very few changes. There was mostly stuff added or deleted. But he didn't drastically alter the tone of the book. Burton's film was true to the spirit of Dahl's writing.

[GregMcduck]

He added a pointless backstory and completely changed Wonka's character! IS NONE OF THIS GETTING THROUGH TO YOU!?!

[bratpop]

Your statements sound like that of someone who has never picked up a book in his life.

Riiiiight, because if it's in a book, it must advance the plot and characters, because novelists (and especially children's novelists) have the strictest of editors who would never allow anything unnecessary to be included since every book has to be exactly 120 pages long.

Your statements sound like those of someone who accepts everything he reads and thinks books must be better than other mediums because they require active participation. Think before you type, like I do (yes, it's true). The 70s movie got rid of Charlie's father and it made him seem much more sympathetic, as did the inclusion of his school classes to contrast how poor he was. The newer version makes him look way too happy. He's got a sweet-ass loft, a loving family, most of whom can't even get out of bed to scold or beat him, and he gets a whole candy bar every year! Awesome! I don't CARE if his father was in the book. Did it add anything to the movie besides one joke? Did it?

[Petey Wheatstraw]

He added a pointless backstory and completely changed Wonka's character!

The backstory was not pointless, and Wonka was perfect.  IS NONE OF THIS GETTING THROUGH TO YOU!?!

[Petey Wheatstraw]

The 70s movie got rid of Charlie's father and it made him seem much more sympathetic

No, it didn't.

The newer version makes him look way too happy.

No, it doesn't.

Your statements sound like those of someone who accepts everything he reads and thinks books must be better than other mediums because they require active participation.

No, my statements do not. I do not believe that someone who thinks before they type would write a sentence as ridiculous as this.

[esoobaC .T bocaJ]

wait, I thought Charlie and the Chocolate factory was one of those "over 20 year sequels" because in the first one, if you remember, Wonka left the factory to Charlie.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Yes, one day the Oompa-Loompas woke up to find that Charlie had morphed into Wonka overnight. That's in my adaptation of the book.

[bratpop]

Oh well. Isaacs will be Isaacs.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

"DAMN YOU, ISAAC, for MAKING SENSE! I condemn you to in that horrible Tim Burton's next pointless, awful, worthless, trash remake of a cinematic masterpiece on the same level of, Hell, BETTER THAN SHAKESPEARE! You are unworthy of my approval to have an opinion different than mine, you BASTARD!"

[GregMcduck]

He added a pointless backstory and completely changed Wonka's character!

The backstory was not pointless, and Wonka was perfect.  IS NONE OF THIS GETTING THROUGH TO YOU!?!

Dare say, what's the point of the backstory?

And you can not possibly be saying that book Wonka is the same as the film Wonka. You, who must have everything perfectly adapted from the book, can not possibly be saying that silly but mature book Wonka is the same as blundering manchild film Wonka.

[bratpop]

I thought the backstory was okay. I like backstories and am guilty of adding one to an adaptation. But it really wasn't very exciting or visually interesting. Just very Burtonesque. The Oompaloompas essentially looked like the natives from Joe vs. the Volcano living in an Ewok village. And while it was interesting seeing Wonka not pale and in jungle gear, it was like Johnny Depp playing another character. I couldn't picture Gene Wilder in the same scene. Unless he had a moustache. Then it would be okay. The headgear was frightening and it disturbed me that they never showed anybody taking it off. I had a friend once who tried cutting his braces with wirecutters and then had to get them fixed. The flag joke and the house being gone when he got back were almost too over the top even for this movie. Plus, you know, Christopher Lee looking like an old shoe (shudder). It really was just a ripoff of the flashbacks in Edward Scissorhands with Vincent Price (another horror veteran). Except that was great. The father backstory also felt like a ripoff of Big Fish. I think Burton has daddy issues. Of course, you pile that on top of his now trademarked lack of originality, and it's like Tim was killed and replaced by a clone from the same factory that made Paul McCartney. He was great when he was funny and original, but kinda funny and unoriginal isn't doing much for him.

I did actually like Big Fish though. I just didn't need the daddy issues to be in this movie too. The flashbacks were only slightly clever, but didn't warrant the extended derailment of the movie. They didn't prevent everything else from being predictable. They could have been summed up to, "My dad was a dentist." The end! After Planet of the Apes, Sleepy Hollow and this, I've had enough of seeing old, familiar stories remade by the guy who came up with Beetlejuice.

[doggans]

The backstory was not pointless, and Wonka was perfect.  IS NONE OF THIS GETTING THROUGH TO YOU!?!

Look, I enjoyed the Burton version just as much, if not more, than the flick with Gene Wilder. But seriously, you need to stop claiming your opinion is absolute fact and everyone else's opinion is wrong.

Wonka was not perfect. Depp played the role well, but he didn't play him exactly as described in the book. Neither did Wilder. Neither film is perfect.

And regardless of whether or not you thought the backstory had served its purpose, in my opinion (and in the opinion of a lot of people), it was unnecessary, and cheapened the character of Wonka from a mysterious old eccentric to a simple attention-grabbing rebellious youth who just needs to reconcile with his father in order to live normally.

This may be what you want from a Wonka, and that's fine, but that's not what I, personally, was looking for in a Wonka. At the very least, I would've liked a less cliche explanation than "dad doesn't like what I do".

Despite this, I liked the movie a lot. Imperfect, but entertaining.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

you need to stop claiming your opinion is absolute fact and everyone else's opinion is wrong

The last part of the post was sarcasm. Just compare my post and the post I was replying to.

He added a pointless backstory and completely changed Wonka's character! IS NONE OF THIS GETTING THROUGH TO YOU!?!

The backstory was not pointless, and Wonka was perfect.  IS NONE OF THIS GETTING THROUGH TO YOU!?!

[Petey Wheatstraw]

And you can not possibly be saying that book Wonka is the same as the film Wonka.

I'm not. He isn't.

You, who must have everything perfectly adapted from the book

Please do not put words in my mouth.

blundering manchild

That's a wholly inaccurate description of the character.

while it was interesting seeing Wonka not pale and in jungle gear, it was like Johnny Depp playing another character. I couldn't picture Gene Wilder in the same scene.

That's because Gene Wilder is a FRICKIN' ACTOR, not Willy Wonka. There were two frickin' books before the 1971 film!

[GregMcduck]

And you can not possibly be saying that book Wonka is the same as the film Wonka.

I'm not. He isn't.

Wonka was perfect.