40 QUESTIONS TIME - 04/06/07

[dignan]

On an entirely more important note, do I win any free Rifftrax for getting both movie and guest riffer?

[Conor]

Given the choice between the two, I take Stuart and Metzer's...

I agree with JP.  I also think that anyone who wants to cite the "Dahl hated the movie" argument should be required to provide citations from biographical books or DVD commentaries, and not link to user reviews on Amazon, or IMDB trivia pages or wikipedia articles, because those tend to be self sourcing.  I don't have an opinion about whether he did as well, it seems to be irrelevant.  Maybe he would have approved of a directors cut that added a half hour and involved an entire subplot featuring Coolio...

I believe what NPH said about the movie is that "there's a lot about it that's great, but also a lot that's not so great."  Which is about as good a reason to riff something as anything.  I think that this version of the movie is more memorable than the Burton version, and that's why people will still be watching this movie years from now.  Until this month, I hadn't seen Willy Wonka since College, and I remember watching it then and thinking how enjoyable and weird it still was.  Watching it again now, I agree with NPH:  There's a lot wrong with it, namely, that Wilder doesn't show up and start shrieking and talking in crazy languages until the movie's half over (and the overall cheapness of the entire production.)  Whether or not Dahl "would have loved" something that came out over a decade after he died seems to be an irrelevant one, especially given that the choice regarding riffing has already been made. 

[Pak-Man]

I like both versions myself. The first had that special, timeless quality that Wizard of Oz has. The newer one developed the story immensely and added a lot of depth. I like the original for its historical value and the remake for taking it to the next level. :^)

[Raven]

I just like that both movies could easily be riffed and they are different enough that the rifftrax would be two completely different experiences.  And I'd be in favor of riffing the Burton one down the road.  This is the first trax in a while I'm genuinely excited for.  

[6079SmithW]

I just don't understand how one could get all that worked up about the heresy of adapting a children's book into a children's movie. The Narnia books were among my favorites as a kid, and the cartoon movie sucked. The new movie was more faithful to the book, yet somehow it, too, sucked. However, the book is still really good. Now, I'll get worked up over really crappy adaptations sometimes- I, Robot annoyed me to no end, as did the Hitchhiker's Guide movie- but it's just because I think the movies themselves are terrible and in some cases (I, Robot) were cynically claiming to be an adaptation of the book as a marketing ploy, not because I think it does any damage to the spirit of the book.

[J-Proof]

I just don't understand how one could get all that worked up about the heresy of adapting a children's book into a children's movie. The Narnia books were among my favorites as a kid, and the cartoon movie sucked. The new movie was more faithful to the book, yet somehow it, too, sucked. However, the book is still really good. Now, I'll get worked up over really crappy adaptations sometimes- I, Robot annoyed me to no end, as did the Hitchhiker's Guide movie- but it's just because I think the movies themselves are terrible and in some cases (I, Robot) were cynically claiming to be an adaptation of the book as a marketing ploy, not because I think it does any damage to the spirit of the book.

Excellent summary. Same goes for me, I take a movie as a movie, otherwise my personal morals and ideologies would ALWAYS be offended by Hollywood and I'd have died from infuriated stomach ulcers punching the lights out of my major arteries LONG ago =)

Willy Wonka was, imo, NOT a crappy adaptation -- or "CA" - thank you Smith for the terminology =) -- so I could care less if Dahl liked it or not.

[AmandaGal]

I like both movies.  I think you have to take them as separate pieces.  I know they're adaptations of the same work but it's almost like comparing apples to oranges anyway.  They were adapted and filmed at separate times with different societal "norms."  I don't think Burton's type of adaptation would have worked as well back then.  When you're adapting something to screen, current trends in entertainment, culture, etc. have a big effect.  It's really hard to compare an old movie to a modern one.   That probably doesn't make much sense, but I think the original was great for when and what it was.  I think the remake was equally as great for when and what it was.

That being said, the "there's no earthly way of knowing" segment of the first scared the hell out of me when I was a kid and I think the movie is a bit twisted.  I wouldn't want to be a room alone with Gene Wilder.

[RandyMistie]

Well, it is one of Marilyn Manson's favorite films, so... that should tell you something.  There is a song on his "Portrait of an American Family" album that quotes the movie and of course his video for "Dope Hat" even has oompa loompa's in it.

In other words, AmandaGal, there is a reason why you think it's creepy.  Cuz it is.  'Course, alot of childrens' literature is, if you think about it.

[6079SmithW]

Have you read the Witches, man? Roald Dahl's stuff is all pretty worrying- the kids don't have a great survival rate, and the adult world is not friendly or comprehensible. Willy Wonka, in Dahl terms, isn't really an adult, but he isn't a child, either, so he exists in this weird, threatening but friendly genius space. Really, he's like the God of his little world, at least in the Old Testament sense- he distributes punishments and rewards according to his own idiosyncratic system, and he's friendly but not in an approachable manner. Also, I believe God traditionally wears a purple suit.

[RandyMistie]

Have you read the Witches, man? Roald Dahl's stuff is all pretty worrying- the kids don't have a great survival rate, and the adult world is not friendly or comprehensible. Willy Wonka, in Dahl terms, isn't really an adult, but he isn't a child, either, so he exists in this weird, threatening but friendly genius space. Really, he's like the God of his little world, at least in the Old Testament sense- he distributes punishments and rewards according to his own idiosyncratic system, and he's friendly but not in an approachable manner. Also, I believe God traditionally wears a purple suit.

Wow, you really nailed it, my friend, my friend...  You know, I have been thinking about this idea that kids' stories are often scarier than you probly think they should be and I think it's because childhood is pretty scary.  I mean, you're pretty weak, small, kind of defenseless, at the mercy of a lot of really big strong people that smack you around and lock you in the trunk of the car...

OOOPS, that was MY childhood, sorry...

Um... nevermind youse guys...  YAY!  WILLY WONKA!!!  NPH GUEST RIFFER!!! WOO HOO!!!

[Dim of the Yard]

I stumbled on the updated front page.  I actually screamed when I saw the bobblehead Mike in the corner, and trust me, it was not due to delight.  Michael J. Wonka is a rather scary thing to behold.

On the topic of Roald Dahl's books, I'll agree that they can be rather frightening, which I actually liked.  I loved The Witches because it had more of a bittersweet ending than I was used to.  Dahl had some pretty sick ideas, even in his children's books ("A kid made a potion that made his grandmother shrink into nothingness?  Woah, AWESOME!"), and I ate them all up.

Anybody read his short stories?  I've only read 'Royal Jelly' and 'Lamb to the Slaughter,' and they're... pretty interesting, to say in the least.  Especially that first one.

[SmilinJackRoss]

Dahl would have been pleased with Burton's version.

Wow.  I can't believe you're claiming to know what Dahl would have been pleased with.  Could you be more presumptive?

I really like the 1971 version, but it's probably because I grew up watching it, and enjoyed it on that "kids" level.  Then when I got older, watching it again I caught all of Gene Wilder's funny little side comments that flew over my head when I was smaller.  I liked the new version of the movie, and I thought Depp's Wonka was great.  But didn't think it was better than the older version.  Yes, it restored some of the original books content (the squirrels, etc) but it also added the whole Wonka origin story, which I didn't like and found completely unnecessary.

[FordPrefect]

I like the Burton one better than the Wilder one. I always thought it was interesting that when the second one came out, Wilder was on some talk show and said that he didn't think that they should remake the 1971 film. Interesting in the sense that it's not really a remake of  "his" movie as much as it is another adaptation of a book. Sort of like if you appeared in a movie version of Hamlet, they made another one a few decades later, and you got ticked off because they were "remaking your movie." (In a related note, I played Charlie's grandpa in a high school production. I point this out because I think it might help explain why I care about this movie debate.) I liked the music a bit better in the Burton version. More variety.  I also like the fact that Charlie actually takes some fairly proactive actions at the end of the Burton film. Something that got to me about the first movie is that Charlie doesn't really do all that much and really only wins the Chocolate Factory at the end because a) he was poor and got the sympathy of the audience and b) he wasn't a complete moron like the other kids who ended up offing themselves because they couldn't control their vices. In the Burton film he actually does some things that make him worthy of being a title character. You would think that Burton's film would be the darker of the two given his past films, but it's actually a bit more family friendly than the 1971 film. No chicken getting it's head cut off in the Burton film. Plus, Burton actually shows you that the kids are still alive at the end. Wilder Wonka says they're alive but he could have just said that so Charlie didn't get nightmares.

Note: I'm not saying that this film is perfect or that it shouldn't get riffed in the future. Nor am I saying that the 1971 film is a horrible mess. I just prefer the Burton version over the 1971 version.

[Raven]

My only problem with the Burton version is that they completely removed the fizzy lifting drink scene and that was fairly important to the story (as is remember it anyway).  In reality Charlie wasn't that much better than the other kids. 

[Sharktopus]

Bottom line: both movies are weird as hell and perfect Riffing fodder.

Does anyone else see "NPH" and think insulin?