I've seen two different trailers and I get the feeling this film is gonna be bad. I know, I'm just jumping ahead, but I just don't see Johnny as Willy Wonka. Nuh-uh, he doesn't look convincing enough. Plus with the reputation of Burton's remakes (Planet of the Apes) this project is looking downwards.
Just a heads up- the movie is not a remake. (Someone may have mentioned this already, but I'm not going to search thru the past 28 pages to find it if they did.) From what I've heard, this movie is a more loyal adaptation of the book, and while I'm sure the movies are similar (same characters, same plot) they will also be very different (ie this one's not a musical.)
I'm looking forward to the movie- I like Tim Burton, and Johnny Depp is a great actor and teh hot. Seems like it's going to be very stylized, which works for Burton and Depp well, and which should fit the movie too.
One thing I find interesting is that none of the kids in the movie are familiar at all. Did they purposely pick unknowns? They look like they'll do well, but I suppose we'll find out soon.
Here's hoping it's as good as it looks like it'll be.
For starters, if this topic title read "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - More Loyal Adaptation of the Book" people would contest it much more hotly, since it’s so debatable. Since there was already a movie using the book's story, it was presented or "made".
Now that there is another movie based on the same book, it is a remake (Something in remade form, especially a new version of an earlier movie or song); not necessarily another version of the previous movie’s story, but the same source/story is being re-presented and therefore RE-made. Being a more "loyal" adaptation doesn't exempt it (or any movies like this) from the "Remake" label.
Just because it's "more accurate" doesn't automatically make it better. Creative license is an important part of adapting movies from books or other sources. The original story can often be expanded upon or offer another point of view the author wants the audience to see, that they didn’t do with the source. Even authors involved in these productions often choose not to be "loyal" to the original story because (they thought) a direct translation would not work well.
For example, anyone who knows the original movie/adaptation should also know that Roald Dahl himself (author of the book) ok'ed that version of the story, so he obviously didn't think "loyalty/accuracy" to the book's story was necessary. It worked out fine and became a classic to boot.
Among other “more faithful adaptations” to books, there is also The Shining. It might not have been released in theaters, but the idea is the same. Being more “loyal” to the story didn’t guarantee a better or more interesting movie. It offered a different perspective, not necessarily a “better” one. That’s another topic in itself, though.
If Tim really wanted to do something creative, he should’ve made a movie out of the second book “Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator” which hasn’t been done yet. Imagine what today’s technology could do with that story. It would also open people up to the continuation of the first book.
Originally posted by fruits
this movie will not be better then the first. no way no how. i mean, they thought that getting johnny depp as willy wonka would make it miraculous, but from what ive seen in the previews, Depp does a crappy job of portraying willy wonka. i mean, in the original, he is so non-schalante, not really having a care in the world, yet a very wise and fun man. but johnny depp's version just seems like a little gay kid. i dunno, im gonna see it, but from what ive seen, its gonna suck
Well, you obviously won't know whether or not Johnny does a good job until you see the film. He is a great actor and hasn't disappointed me yet so I'm looking forward to seeing it.
