Topic: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: Old vs. New

So this is always something me and my friends argue about (no, not the economy. Not global warming. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). I personally think that the new version that was directed by Tim Burton was significantly better than the old version. It was a much more accurate representation of the book, and did a much better job of telling an interesting story, and a more coherant one at that. It was also much more artistically designed.

I will admit, though, that Gene Wilder is a much better Willy Wonka. I like Jonny Depp's Wonka because he made the character his own and didn't try to rip off Wilder, but if I could take Gene Wilder and put him in the Tim Burton film I would do it in a hot second.

(a) yes, I very much agree with you that the new version was much better than the old. The lame songs were left out (and the Oompa Loompas didn't have morals shoved into their mouths in Charlie; they actually used lines from the songs from the book!), the kids and their families were updated for modern times (Violet being a best-at-everything tomboy with a room full of trophies instead of just a salesman's daughter with a gum-chewing record; Mike being an insufferable know-it-all and into violent video games, which didn't exist back then or when the book was written; etc.), they didn't keep the awful schoolmaster scenes or the part with the fizzy lifting drinks (which didn't exist in the book) or the part with Wonka screaming at Charlie, and you're absolutely right -- the new version did a much better job of coherently telling an interesting story that was also visually pleasing. I think that's just the magic of Tim Burton and Danny Elfman, though, along with the narrator they utilized to keep everyone focused on what was happening.

(b) I have to disagree... I liked Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka much better than Gene Wilder's. Wilder portrayed a much more business-like Willy Wonka, and between the contract, the schemeing with the Slugworth impostor, and the screaming at Charlie at the end of the movie, it was hard to believe that such a whimsical factory was really any product of his own doing... Wilder's Wonka was more like a ringmaster or a frontman than a lighthearted soul capable of creating impossibilities at whim. In contrast, Depp's Wonka was so airheaded, flighty, and (for most of the movie) inwardly focused that it was easy to see he honestly believed he could do anything with candy, and thus, he was actually able to do it (and it helped to have the added backstory behind his current mindset). Depp's Wonka was still a child at heart, and even though he did yell or do things to prompt adverse responses at times, he was so silly about it that it was impossible to believe he was doing anything out of malice. Wilder's Wonka seemed truly angry and downright psycho at times, and there is never a time in Willy Wonka where I am able to believe that he is anything other than an old, cranky businessman at heart.

i liked the oomplaloompa song better in the first

Dahl hated the first film, but naturally didn't express an opinion on the second.

@theblackdragon
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I did like the original a lot. I don't know...there's just something about that made me like it more. It's just so...eccentric, and weird, what with all the gadgets and such, and none of the CGI flair. If there was one scene I would take out of each movie it would be the fizzy lifting drinks scene from the first one -- that scene is just embarrassing to watch. It's not funny, it's not exciting, it's just plain not entertaining. In the second one I would get rid of the scene with the squirrels, if only for that one line of attempted humor "don't touch that squirrel's nuts!"

@grenworthshero: i'm pretty sure the squirrels were actually in the book, though. i'll admit the 'don't touch that squirrel's nuts!' line was a bit over-the-top, lol, but I liked how the little guys turned the tables on Veruca, determined her to be a bad nut, and then carried her off to the chute... and then went straight back to work like nothing was wrong. I also liked the bit with Wonka trying to find the right key and then magically finding it right when it was time for dad to enter the song.

@theblackdragon
I figured it was probably in the book (I've not read it, but I've read enough books to know what seems like something from a book) but it was how the scene was treated. I didn't like the quirky humor they tried to put into it, and the CGI was getting pretty ridiculous at that point. I'm not one of those who hates CGI, in fact, I'm one of the few who like the new Star Wars trilogy, but that's what I liked about the first movie: the organic effects, that felt like they were fantastic.

i don't understand what you're talking about with the CGI in that particular scene -- you know the squirrels were real, right? sure, there was probably some CGI going on there to help set up the shots, but most of the squirrel acting was done with live animals in the actual room with actual props (and actual nuts ).

They were indeed:) I've just re-read the book to my 7y/o son having read it myself some years ago when I was young...oooh those were the days. It's such a dark, dark tale I love it. Dahl's best wrting is when he's at his darkest, like the Twits for example or George's Marvellous Medicine.

With regards to the film(s), give me the original. As much as I hate the singing in it..

It's classic story and both versions are good.However I would rank Tim Burtons over the original because of the visual style.

@eripmav: My favorite Dahl stories have always been Matilda and The Witches. Granted, I haven't read every single Roald Dahl book out there, but a lot of what I have read was either dark and creepy or they just have some seriously twisted characters, and I like that.

Oompa loompa doompaty doo. I have a perfect puzzle for you.

EDIT: Why did I post?

I love the books, very much! And I loved the original movie!

I cannot and will not watch the new one. Ever!

...

And to think, I used to be friends with you.

Honestly, I liked the second one better. (I couldn't stop laughing at the doll scene! )
Both films are still wonderful.

The first one by far. Gene Wilder was a much better fit for the role.

The original may not be quite as close to the book in terms of events, but in terms of the characterisations it most certainly is superior to the more recent film. Depp's characterisation of Wonka is bizarre, and where the hell did that crap about his childhood dentistry stuff come from? Gene Wilder's performance was genius; absolutely the right amount of impishness with a sinister undertone.

Whatever you may think about the songs in the first one, they're at least comprehensible unlike whatever the Oompa Loompa clones in the more recent film were saying, though neither film matches the novel's rendering of them.

My wife loves the original film; I've come to appreciate it and have enjoyed the many many viewings over the years. The other one I really didn't want to see what with the creepy use of CGI to smooth out the characters faces and lame dialogue (compare "We are the magic makers and we are the dreamers of dreams" with the Depp line "You're just silly!" -- terrible!), but after seeing it, I'd say it's not bad; just pointless. If you want something close to the book, just read the book!

I liked Wilder's song on the boat in the old movie. Strangely, that's just about the only thing in that movie that actually was taken straight from the book and it's the one that Burton and Elfman didn't include in the new movie. I just thought that was interesting since all the other songs in the new movie follow the book.

I don't know if maybe the sets in the old movie seemed more impressive at the time or what, but the set designs in the new movie just make the old movie look really stale and unimaginative. The old movie's factory feels like a factory with a fancy indoor plastic garden and a few eccentric design choices. The new movie's factory feels like its own world set apart from the rest of reality.

I don't like how the old movie takes so damn long to actually get inside the factory.

edit:

Depp's characterisation of Wonka is bizarre, and where the hell did that crap about his childhood dentistry stuff come from?

I think I heard that that was mentioned in the second book. I'll have to check on that...

Yeah I've agreed with everything you've said in this thread so far, and you made a compelling argument for Depp being a better Wonka. And yeah, you've got to love how he found the key right after she fell down the chute.

The old one by a country mile. Did not like the new one one bit and I'm a big J Depp/Tim Burton fan, but I thought it was terrible really. The old one had much more charm and an almost magical quality.I found the new one very sterile what with the cloned Oompa Loompa's (WTF) and Depps very strange almost creepy performance and the awful factory design. Give me Gene Wilder any day.Yes it wasn't close to the book but like Sean Aaron says if you want the book ,read the book. Just my opinion of course What do you get when you guzzle down sweets? CLASSIC!!