Oh, in what you said about the Oompa Loompas being ethnic, the original oompa loompas in the book were originally from Africa, but the author changed it because people were not happy with that aspect.
I don't think that worked in the new adaptation, either. It was borderline parody of a sweatshop. Subserviant foreigners working under the thumb of one "Big Company".
I don't think he's overrated, I think his work is overhyped, and he's clearly got two styles. Bright and dark, and his bright stuff relys on colors, where as his dark stuff he's got a penchant for. Definitive goth stylings are his speciality, not happy-happy lollipops and candy flicks.
I still stand by my original statements. The new movie was weak and didn't really offer anything new. No major events. They brought Charlie's dad back to life, they added the squirrel scene, and added more back-story to Wonka (which wasn't necessary IMO). I thought the acting was poor, the Loompah's were overdone, the songs were horrid, and Johnny Depp was atrocious. This is a sad excuse for a film that just shouldn't have been made.
I understand many of you like it. And I respect that. Doesn't change the fact that I think it's a piece of shit and definitely shouldn't have Burton or Depp's name attached to it.
The kicker is, I actually wanted to like this movie when I first saw it. It's just so bad.
__________________ Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive.
Gender: Male Location: The Fortress, North Pole with Santa
Account Restricted
I would say his teo styles generally are miss the point (his take on Batman most good Batman comes from Austin in the seventies even the Dark Knight returns has its roots in Austin) and good idea poor execution like Mars Attacks.
However
Ed Wood, was watchable
Nightmare before, was ok and quite clever
Sleepy Hollow, was ok
Ed Scissors was excellent
but think of the dross and his record with remakes (ok I can only think of planet of the apes) but the original is a fave (despite having no respect for a certain stars stance on firearms). I hated Beetle Juice, Peewee, Big fish etc, etc. Yup, I stand by my comment overated, as for him being a Goth, questionable. That aside he started in the movie business at 13 so he was a prodigy to a point.
__________________
herd behavior is a comical thing - Thanks Silver Spider
Last edited by Sir Whirlysplat on Aug 2nd, 2005 at 06:20 PM
Ya, and? It wasn't essential to the story IMO and worked real well in the original without the father being in the movie. As I brought up that Charlie’s dad was in the new film in my previous post, I’m not exactly sure what your point is.
My point was, and still is, there is no major event that took place in the new film that would justify a remake. This is a minor detail. And let's face it, just because this film is closer to the book than the original film does not make it a better movie. I can make a movie tomorrow that will be closer to the book than Burton's version, that does not make my movie better than Burton's. The same is true of this new one to the original. Just because it is more like the book does not make it a better movie. Movies made from books are always changed in one way or another, because movies have to be condensed to make sense on film. You could make ten movies about lord of the rings and NOT do the books justice. Anyone who says contrary is fooling themselves.
So while I'm still not sure of your point with your one line response with no support; bringing Charlie’s dad in the film, to me, is not a significant reason to remake a movie. In the overall scope of the story, it’s a minor detail and pretty pointless.
__________________ Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive.
Last edited by Erazmus on Aug 2nd, 2005 at 06:48 PM
Kuntz- I don't think anyone actually said HE was a goth, they were talking about the gothic elements, which are definitely in some of his older films. And how could you hate Beetlejuice
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
The typical response is that this is not a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory. This production by Burton is an actually taken from the book and that is totally independent of Willy Wonka. Given that fact I think the film is worth checking out. Personally, I'll wait for the DVD released. I'm too busy watching Batman Begins (whoah! 11 views and still going!)
While that is the typical response, I tend to disagree with it. Since there already was a movie based on the book that has been established as a classic flick across many generations, and is enjoyed still. Any other movie, based on a book (IMO) is a recreation. Roald Dahl wrote the original script for the original Willy Wonka flick. David Seltzer modified 30% of it to adapt it to the big screen. If you want links confirming and supporting these statements, I'll be happy to provide them.
At any rate, it's all semantics. Whether you want to call it a "remake," "re-invision," "rewrite," or whatever, it doesn't change anything. We're just giving it a different name. There, in my opinion, was no reason to make "another" Wonka flick. I originally was disappointed when I first heard they were making another Wonka film. However, I went to the theatre expecting good things from the new one, I wanted to like it. I really did! I am a fan of the story and the original film. I paid 12 dollars and fifty cents to see the IMAX version of the new one. After I watched it, horrified, I realized my concerns were well founded. It was a horrid representation of the book, and did not stand up to the original movie, therefore forming my current opinion that it should have not been made. Granted, this is just my biased perspective. But, when I really thought about it, there wasn't much new material at all. It just presented it differently, and to me, this is a poor excuse to make a film. Though, it happens all the time in Hollywood.
For everyone that still isn't getting it. I don't like the new film. I don't think it should have been made. I understand some people like it. I understand it was made to make money, nothing more. I understand these are my opinions, and that many do not share them. Enjoy the new film, and I will enjoy the original. Because even with all the money and technology available today, I think the movie made more than 30 years ago is still far superior. Technology and special effects do not make a movie. They are there to aid the telling of a story. Somewhere along the lines this concept got lost.
*shrug*
__________________ Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive.
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
No need for external links. I hold the same views as you do. With the only exception that I haven't seen the movie. Until I see the movie I can finally write down my own response to the film. I just don't feel like paying a movie ticket to see this film nor do I support piracy by buying a bootleg copy. I will simply wait for the official DVD release before commenting any further on the film.
I understand completely. I've been telling people I know not to take my word about the movie. That they should at least see it once and formulate their own opinion about it. It's kind of weird though, because they also said they'd wait for the DvD.
Also, wanted to let you know the last part of my post wasn't directed at you. It was more of a general statement.
*EDIT* Also, I haven't seen Batman yet. I've been kind of hesitant. But if you think it's that good, maybe I'll give it a shot.
__________________ Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 31st, 2005 10:36 PM
but I will not incriminate myself
suffice to say its your typical Tim Burton rubbish.
imo
