40 QUESTIONS TIME - 04/06/07

[FordPrefect]

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. 

The fizzy lifting drink scene was mildly important in the 1971 movie, but I don't remember it being in the book. It might have been invented by the filmmakers specifically for the Wilder film. I agree that 1971Charlie wasn't that much better than the other kids. The fact that he was poor and that he wasn't quite as stupid as the other kids are the only things he had going for him. I still think Burton's Charlie character was more than a few notches above his peers however.

[Dim of the Yard]

The fizzy lifting drink scene was mildly important in the 1971 movie, but I don't remember it being in the book.

It was mentioned in the book, actually, in anecdote form.  Wonka tested the fizzy lifting drink on an Oompa Loompa, knowing full well that burping would bring you back down.  Unfortunately, the Oompa Loompa in question was too polite to burp and floated away.

[Pak-Man]

This raises an interesting question:

Can you riff the same story twice via remake? :^)

[FordPrefect]

That would explain why I don't remember it being in the book. It sounds like the filmmakers just ran with that anecdote and turned it into something else.

I'd say that you can riff the same story twice via remake. They have enough differences where it's not really a rerun. I don't think that Mike would be in a big rush to riff something so similar real soon though. He'd probably wait at least a year or so.

Edit: I just started watching the Burton one again, and I'm not sure it would make as good a riff as the 1971 film just because it makes fun of itself a lot of times.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

RD wrote the screenplay, with Metzer underneath him. Metzer and Stuart had to tweak many changes to the screenplay that simply wouldn't film well.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Dahl wrote the early drafts, and what was filmed was hacked to bits by David Seltzer. DAHL HATED THE MOVIE.

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.

I think you've completely misinterpreted the story. In the book (and in the new film), Charlie was better than the other kids. That Fizzy Lifting stuff that was added to the 1971 film ruined the whole story. Stuart and Seltzer completely missed the point of Dahl's writing. They didn't understand the original work. They just wanted a piece of commercial garbage to help hock candy bars. That's why the film was a box-office and critical flop back in the day, while the book remains a treasured classic.

[AmandaGal]

Does anyone else see "NPH" and think insulin?

I do!  Actually, when "NPH" was announced as guess riffer of the movie about candy, I snickered to myself a bit at the irony.  I thought it was just because I was a dumb pharmacist (almost) and nobody else would get it, since real people don't call it NPH.

Anyway, I agree that children's books and stories on the whole are pretty twisted.  Witches and shoving them into ovens and such.  Being a kid is a scary place.  However, none of the stories freaked me out quite like Gene Wilder did.

[6079SmithW]

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.

I think you've completely misinterpreted the story. In the book (and in the new film), Charlie was better than the other kids. That Fizzy Lifting stuff that was added to the 1971 film ruined the whole story. Stuart and Seltzer completely missed the point of Dahl's writing. They didn't understand the original work. They just wanted a piece of commercial garbage to help hock candy bars. That's why the film was a box-office and critical flop back in the day, while the book remains a treasured classic.

Umm, hate to break it to you, but the movie is a treasured classic, too. The box office returns are utterly irrelevant. And the book, like most Dahl books, was a series of strange events with some interesting characters to tie them together. Stop acting like it's the goddamn Great Gatsby.

[Minnesota]

The Great Gatsby IS an excellent book
... wait what were you guys talking about

[Douglin]

Yeah, saying something is a box-office flop isn't helping your point much, Wizard of Oz and Shawshank Redemption both did awful at the box office.

Anyway, still looking forward to this riff.

[AmazingThor]

I don't think the fizzy lifting drink ruined the story. Charlie was still the better child- he just wasn't the annoying goody-two-shoes that Freddy Highmore. The new Charlie was stoic and adult like where as the old Charlie was still a kid. The difference was the other brats never once realised that they were doing wrong. Charlie owned up to his mistake and apologized. Besides, you can't beat the burping scene. (and does anyone else think "The Belching Charlies" would be an AWESOME band name?)

[dignan]

Personally, I think both movies work.  I like some parts of the Gene Wilder version more, and I like some parts of the Johnny Depp version more.  There's room in my world for both.  I'm a lot like Jesus in that way.   

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Yeah, saying something is a box-office flop isn't helping your point much, Wizard of Oz and Shawshank Redemption both did awful at the box office.

I never said that the film is bad because it was a flop. I said that I thought that the film was bad, and it was also a flop. Don't put words in my mouth.

the book, like most Dahl books, was a series of strange events with some interesting characters to tie them together. Stop acting like it's the goddamn Great Gatsby.

I never acted like that.

I don't think the fizzy lifting drink ruined the story. Charlie was still the better child- he just wasn't the annoying goody-two-shoes that Freddy Highmore. The new Charlie was stoic and adult like where as the old Charlie was still a kid.

Highmore's Charlie was NOT a "goody-two-shoes". Highmore played Charlie the way he was supposed to be played. You obviously do not understand Dahl's writing if you think that Charlie was portrayed as a "goody-two-shoes" in the good film adaptation. Highmore's Charlie is NOT "stoic and adult-like." He IS a kid. But he's true to the book. Having him break the rules would destory his character. Anyway, I never said that Fizzy Lifting was the only reason that I didn't like the film. There are many reasons why the film is a failure to me. For example, I dislike that the producers tried to Americanize it. The Buckets are British, yet they are American in the 1971 film. As if people from the United States are too dumb to sympathize with someone who is not from their own country. And also, the screenwriter (Seltzer, NOT Dahl), made the mistake of killing off Charlie's father in order to bleed reactions out of audiences, sort of like a cinematic kick to the crotch. Not needed, not wanted. Do not try to stuff melodrama down my throat. That is not the movie I want to watch. The 2005 adaptation actually gets inside the world of Dahl's writing; as if Tim Burton and his cast and crew jumped inside of the book and filmed in Dahl's story-world. It doesn't try to coax reaction out of us, it doesn't shove bland, annoying show-tunes sung by annoying, unhuman demons in our face, it's a genuinely good film and a genuinely good adaptation.

[Conor]

If anyone is interested in a different side of Dahl, his novella My Uncle Oswald is a really funny read.

http://www.amazon.com/My-Uncle-Oswald-Roald-Dahl/dp/0140055770/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1555731-3427261?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176218546&sr=8-1

"Inspired by stories of the aphrodisiac powers of the Sudanese blister beetle, the palpable seductiveness of the lovely Yasmin Howcomely, and the scientific know-how of Professor A. R. Woresley, Uncle Oswald anticipates the concept of the Nobel sperm bank by some 40 years, flimflamming crowned heads, great artists, and eccentric geniuses into making "donations.""

I've always thought this would make a great movie, but is the kind of thing that would probably come out terrible, starring Ben Stiller and people never get around to reading the book because of it.  I fear the same thing will happen whenever they make a movie out of Confederacy of Dunces. 

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

yawn

so what has doogie been up to anyways, i know hes got some sitcom and whatnot but other than that does he do anything else?

[Douglin]

Woah dude, calm down, I didn't put any words in your mouth, I just said some films that have done bad at the box office are good.

...it doesn't shove bland, annoying show-tunes sung by annoying, unhuman demons in our face...

No it just has bad pop songs, I'm not saying they're worse than the creepy original ..things.. but they're still not great, you know I doubt the soundtrack set the charts on fire or anything.

and I do appreciate the remake, but the original wins out for me, although I'll admit nostalgia play a big part in that...