December 11, 2004

• Has Tim Burton ever done a good movie?
• Ummm.... Betelgeuse? No, that was crap.. uhmmm... He's made movies that *look* pretty good...
• My first thoughts were: That song is the most annoying song, in the world, ever, EVER. Why is Johnny Depp acting like he's in the Fast Show? What's with the production design? Yeah, it looks like all other Tim Burton production designs mashed together, but it's also... I dunno - oddly muted? And doesn't some of it look like a straight rip-off of the 1971 version - the Wonka logo on the chocolate bars, for example? Why, despite all of that, is this making me very, very excited? It looks great. Completely mental. Very silly. Scary. Borderline psychotic. Good. Oompa Loompa. The 1971 version had an amazing performance from Wilder and some cool production design, but the rest of the film really wasn't up to much. Dahl hated it. But then, Dahl was a shit. (The War of the Worlds teaser is pretty nice too, underplayed and atmospheric. While we're talking about teaser trailers.)
• I don't see how anybody could do better than Gene Wilder's [snip] Wonka Why does have to be a competition? Burton and Depp aren't trying to one up Wilder and Mel Stuart. This isn't an attempt to show what a failure their version was. Remakes (and covers) are made by people who like the movie. This isn't a hostile play made by despisers of Wonka '71. Depp and Wilder aren't rivals in some acting version of You Got Served.
• Oh c'mon.. Of course they're in competition. Maybe if I saw the 71 version now I'd be less enamored -- but childhood emotional attachments recognized, I love that flick. This doesn't look to do anything radically different, so I'm just wondering why Burton didn't choose to remake a movie that more needs it. (Or go for an original -- do a Charlie & the Great Glass Elevator, for instance?)
• I'm not saying they are in competition, it's just that sometimes a portrayal seems so unique or impressive that to have it done again by a different actor appears to diminish the material in some way. I admit that this is an entirely irrational view, but on the other hand, over the last decade or more we've been subject to remakes of 'classics' that sucked majorly, so it might be a paranoid fear based on that. I was never a huge fan of the original Chocolate Factory movie, but the almost psycho performance by Wilder always struck me as pretty amazing, for a 'kid's movie'.
• I am a little uneasy about this version too. Because it's just too many things I love... Dahl, Burton, Depp. The original film has been one of my favorites from childhood. This looks like it could implode. And why has Johnny Depp made Willy Wonka gay? Not that its a bad thing. Just curious.
• It's not a remake.
• Has Tim Burton ever done a good movie? The Nightmare Before Christmas was excellent in a kids-movie-that-was-really-made-for-adults way.
• Has Tim Burton ever done a good movie? Nightmare before Christmas. Watching the trailer, I kept thinking to myself: Johnny Depp is ok, but you know who would have made a truly ass-kicking Willie Wonka? Crispin Glover.
• Good call, chriss. I too loved the original, and while I normally love Johnny Depp, the teaser is not selling me on him. And he just looks wrong for it too.
• I didn't see the first version of WW until I was 18 or 19. Even as "an adult," it thoroughly freaked me out. I am a big fan of Tim Burton, but I rarely watch his movies more than once because they make me feel like I just ate six pounds of sugar. From the looks of the trailer, this new Willy Wonka will inspire a mixture of both these feelings.
• I don't know what to think about this, but the original is one of my favorite movies of all time. Last year I took a class on children's film and my prof somehow convinced Mel Stuart to come to class on Willy Wonka day. It was super awesome. From what I've heard, flashboy's right and Burton worked more from the original book than the '71 film (judging from the trailer, though, I'm guessing he used elements of both). That said: I, for one, would love to see Depp and Wilder have a dance-off.
• Michael Jackson would have been perfect as Wonka.
• But can't you see that Depp looks like Michael Jackson in that trailer?!!
• I'm excited about this one. As for why the wonka bar looks the same as in '71, it's because that's the ONLY place where the movie got anything right from the book. There's a wonka bar illustration in the book, and they pretty much copied it for both movies. My only complaint regarding Johnny Depp is that he seems a bit young for the role. However, this looks much more like what I'd imagine the book to look like. I enjoy both the book and 70's movie - but not at ALL in the same ways. They are both dark, it's true...in totally motherfucking different ways. It's about time someone actually did the book version. I'm completely excited about it!
• I, too, love the original film (except for that song that Charlie's mom sings. "Chaaaaarrrrrrlllliieeeeeee....." *shudder* Tell me you don't fast forward through that ten minute yawner.). I'm looking forward to Burton's version. I'll admit I'm a Burton fan, and I think that the movie will be either really good, or really bad.
• Oh -- and I agree with Chriss -- I would love to see Crispin Glover in this! (though I think Depp has potential, here)
• eet's been done.
• As to whether Tim Burton's ever done a good movie- yes he has. Check out Ed Wood.
• Willy Wonka is also one of my all-time favorite movies. It has a Grimm's Fairy Tale edge but fun. The sceene that still creeps me out is in the tunnel with the death images and bugs and chickens getting their head chopped off. I am surprisingly giddy about the new version. Has Tim Burton ever done a good movie? Pee-wee's Big Adventure
• For what it's worth, A nightmare before christmas was only produced by Burton--otherwise he didn't touch it.
• During the past ten years, has any modernized version of a classic ever been good? When the studios keep playing up their name-brand actors rather than priding theirselves on the production, it pretty much assures a travesty. I'm predicting another Cat In The Hat™ Featuring Michael Myers™ debacle, with the usual million-dollar crossmarketing crap.
• Yeah, the original Cat In The Hat movie was much better than the new one.
• I think the trailer doesn't really show the potential of this movie. The montage of all of the different kid's situations in the beginning looks really well done, in my opinion. The trailer shows only the really happy aspects of the Willy Wonka world, and hardly any of the enticing apsects of the original, like the obviously sinister sidekick and willy wonka's insanity. From what I can tell, the set and props will fit the movie better, but to say it looks like shit or will be horrible is a bit premature at this point, don't you think?
• I am also really curious about the kid (Freddie Highmore, currently in Finding Neverland) who will play Charlie. Peter Ostrum had such a very "real" quality in the '71 movie. Maybe because he wasn't a child star. That was the first and only film he ever did.
• Of course! The Ed Wood movie was great. I had forgotten about that. Actually, I also enjoyed the headless horseman flick, even though it was very mannered.
• I rarely watch his movies more than once because they make me feel like I just ate six pounds of sugar. That's my problem, exactly. War of the worlds: Anyone else feel like the aliens were being used as a metaphor for terrorists? The descriptions were distinctly Bushian. And the explosions from behind the hill could be easily substituted for the view of 9/11 from somewhere like New Jersey. God I hate Speilberg. What an exploiting hack.
• For what it's worth, A nightmare before christmas was only produced by Burton -- otherwise he didn't touch it. There's a reason that when they give the Best Picture oscar, they don't give it to the Director. They give it to the Producer. Producers often have a lot of day-to-day involvement, from the rough conceptualization through the release. Often, it is the Producer that selects the Director, and the AMPAS has strict rules on who is and isn't allowed to carry the title of "Producer" on a film. Now if he were an "Executive Producer" that would imply that he didn't touch it much, as there are many times that someone "important" (like a Coppola or a Spielberg, or the like) merely watches a few rough cuts and makes suggestions, gives a thumbs-up to a final cut, and takes home a big paycheck for what often amounts to maybe 100 hours of work.
• Anyone else feel like the aliens were being used as a metaphor for terrorists? The descriptions were distinctly Bushian. "NO ONE WOULD have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment." - Herbert George Wells, The War of the Worlds, 1898
• Because I hadn't read the book, when I heard about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, a different name than the '71 movie, and saw the posters, I thought Depp was Charlie and the movie was a sequel. I've filled that hole of ignorance and know now that "Charlie..." is the name of the book. Still, I was getting pretty excited about seeing what that factory had done to Charlie over the years.
• Damn, where's The Planet of the Apes teaser? I'm sureTim Burton will love to see that linked around the internet.
• Has Tim Burton ever done a good movie? yes, a whole lot of them. Obviously. I never know how to react when people make snarks that are just completely off base... Did the Beatles EVER have a good song? Did the Black Plague ever kill ANY people in Medievil Europe? Has the sun EVER warmed the Earth even a LITTLE BIT??
• I dunno, I was holding out hope that Wesley Snipes would get the nod as Wonka. I loathed the '71 movie. I had read C+CF several times by then and the movie didn't capture the feel of it at all (although when does a movie get a book right?). I was encouraged when I first heard that Burton and Depp were involved in the remake, that they could get the dark somber tone I imagined. From the trailer it looks like I was wrong. The new one seems to have the same misplaced silliness of the earlier. The music is all wrong. What's with Depp's Haldol grin?
• I realize this is very late, but: Flashboy-- But then, Dahl was a shit. Is there any evidence you can point out of this? Because to me, thems fightin' words. Roald Dahl practically raised me, and literarily at least (literarily a word? Hope so) the man could do no wrong.
• I suspect Burton will do a movie far closer to Dahl than the '71, which I never enjoyed (as a child, it struck me as campy rubbish, and I've seen no reason to revisit that opinion as an adult). One of the elements of Dahl's children's books is that they get into the primal sense of morality that kids generally have. They're nasty little tomes in many ways, and that suits kids of the right age just fine. Wilder missed that entirely; I doubt Burton will. musingmelpomne: Depp's in his forties now. He's not exactly a spring chicken, just oddly youthful looking... And Tim Burton has, as Time Factor and others have noted, done rather a lot of good movies, as well as quite a few that look wonderful but don't quite work.
• The preview tells you nothing other than how the movie will look. It is not out to convert viewers like us. It is hard to imagine how half-second snippets strung together could tell us much about the movie. It is designed to let people know that the movie is coming out, that it features Johnny Depp, and that it is made by Tim Burton. It also is probably trying to get kids excited. I regard Gene Wilder as the best comedic actor of the seventies. I am not sure who I think the best comedic actor of our time is, but it may very well be Johnny Depp. He has played too few comedic roles to really determine that, but the ones he has played (Pirates of the Caribbean, Ed Wood, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Benny and Joon, Cry-Baby) have been wildly diverse. Most of our modern comedic actors stay within a very narrow range. Wilder did not. Depp does not. I mean, the stupidest looking movie of the summer of 2003 (Pirates) turned out to be funny and entertaining because of Depp. It is on of the few movies in my memory that was decent because of an actor. Anyone else in that role and it is hard to believe that the movie would have been entertaining at all.
• I'm so totally with bernockle. And I essentially grew up watching Burton movies. And I love the '71 movie. So I'm really looking forward to seeing this. I can't foresee a movie with Johnny Depp that fails to entertain, especially when Depp and Burton work so well together.
• For what it's worth, A nightmare before christmas was only produced by Burton -- otherwise he didn't touch it. He also wrote the story and created the characters. I'd say that's being rather involved, wouldn't you?
• He also wrote the story and created the characters. I'd say that's being rather involved, wouldn't you? Kidding. I forget my abrasive sarcasm doesn't show on the internet.
• I stick by my ascertion that al-Qaida are indeed martian invaders and that Spielberg is a douche.
• The new one seems to have the same misplaced silliness of the earlier. The music is all wrong. What's with Depp's Haldol grin? Same questions that came to my mind when I saw the trailer. I thought, "it's been Burtonized". And was it really necessary? I'm not upset over the re-envisoning of a classic, I'm just really tired of Tim Burton's vanity projects.
• Due to dialup *shakes fist at modem*, cannot see the trailer, so my comment is for the most part of the hijack variety. As to the question on whether Burton has had any great films, IMO Burton's had some GREAT films. Was not intoxicated with Beetle Juice, but it was a good movie. Loved the first Batman. The Nightmare Before Christmas, I don't know why I like, but I like a lot. Edward Scissorhands remains one of my favorites. Pee-wee's Big Adventure was well done as well. That said, his more recent films seem to have suffered a Lucasization. They look spectacular, but come up short on story, and the acting seems to have deadened. Batman Returns, Batman Forever(Producer), Sleepy Hollow, Big Fish, Mars Attacks!, all feature problems, storywise. They seem to lack a coherency, a "flow", that really frustrates me, as they all seemed to be on the cusp of greatness and yet fell just enough short, into an "uncanny valley" of cinema, if you will. And yet the visuals ... the visuals are entirely without peer. But visuals alone, a good movie does not make. I have not seen Ed Wood, James and the Giant Peach (producer), Planet of the Apes, Cabin Boy (Producer), or The World of Stainboy, so cannot offer an informed opinion. This message brought to you by your friends at IMDB: Better Living Through Amazon.com
• But then, Dahl was a shit. Yes, Dahl was often a deeply unpleasant man. He could be extremely generous, loyal, and caring - but he was also a terrible bully, a fantasist, a jealous, self-aggrandising egomaniac, deeply anti-Semitic, and prone to bouts of extreme cruelty towards those closest to him. This review of Jeremy Treglown's biography of him (and this one also) sums it up quite nicely. It also makes the point that the "darkness" thing in Dahl is often overstated. Yes, his books are populated by grotesques, with acts of extreme cruelty visited both upon children and then, in revenge, upon adults. But the core of his writing is actually quite mild, nostalgic and very conformist. I was brought up on Dahl as well, and his flights of imagination were utterly inspiring; but the tone of prim moral lecturing was clear (and off-putting) even as a child. As far as Burton goes, he has made several great films (of which Edward Scissorhands probably ranks as the greatest). If there is a problem, it may be that Burton has all the trappings of an auteur director - immediately identifiable style, repeated themes and concerns, a close group of regular collaborators - but with one missing ingredient. He doesn't write his own films, and nor does he have a regular screenwriter. You get the feeling that, after his intial successes, writers began writing "Tim Burton movies" for him. Just as certain actors begin to have roles written for them (Jack Nicholson, De Niro, etc), which leads to phoned-in performances and going through the motions, Burton too may have got trapped into a rut not entirely of his own making. It's interesting to note that John August, the screenwriter for Charlie, also did the adaptation of Big Fish - and that's the first time since Beetlejuice and Batman (both co-written by Warren Skaaren) that Burton's taken a writer from project to project. It's also interesting to note that August had never seen the 1971 film before doing his own adaptation, and that when he mentioned to Burton that he should probably watch it, Burton explicitly told him not to. August says that when he finally did watch it, after finishing his screenplay, he was surprised at how dark it was.
• On dialup here, but I got the medium quicktime teaser. Depp seemed a bit twitchy compared to the smooth performance of Wilder, but who knows given such limited bandwidth. The song in the teaser is really, really annoying, but who knows how it will fit into the film. I so totally LOVE the song "pure imagination" from the first film which the Ataris covered really nicely. Worth looking up. Kazaaa has the original song as well. Other copyright violation avenues probably do as well.
• Mars Attacks! is my number one favorite movie ever. The aliens said "nyak". Micheal J. Fox gets zapped with a ray gun. Peirce Bronson gets his head chopped off. Jack Nicholson is the president! SLIM WHITMAN! The opening scene (with the cows on fire) was so awesome that it inspired me to write a song about it, called "Burn Cow". I used to sing it almost daily, but sadly I've forgotten the lyrics.
• Mars Attacks! is one of my mom and my favorite films. We watch it and just laugh and laugh.
• I seem to recall that the film critic Mark Kermode once said something along the lines of, "There are two types of people in this world. Those who think that a movie involving little green Martians going "nyak nyak nyak" is a good thing, and those who don't. Life is far too short to waste time even getting to know the ones who don't get it. When you first meet someone, ask them if they like Mars Attacks! If they say no, just stop talking to them."
• Okay, flash, you win. Sigh. Another of my childhood heroes goes down in flames. I just didn't want it to be another case of Kill Yr Idols, but I guess he managed that all by himself. And regarding Burton, for the life of me I do not understand why Big Fish isn't more well liked. I came out of the theater sure that it would finally get him the high praise/Oscars/whatever that he deserved.
• when i first heard about this i thought the idea Was to be more of the book than the movie. what i liked about the movie was the candy garden/chocolate river, a few wacky moments still more to do with the scenery, and the general unsettled oddity, mostly found in Gene Wilder. oh Gene worth watching for and just that more charm in "the Little Prince." Blows Bob Fosse Away I was wondering what they would do with the oompa loompas since they made them orange and green for the screen. Depp can pull out some weird things but sleepy hollow says he can't carry a whole movie with him *reserves jusgement, hasn't seen a burton thing in ages* where's the new Danny Kaye?
• bare remembers book but remembers the glass elevator one very disturbing
• Everyone needs to calm down! I think this looks totally awesome and everyone's giving it too hard of a time. This trailer was less than a minute long. If it's a two hour movie, this is judging a book by a square inch of the upper-right hand corner of the back cover.
• waraw: Yeah, I'm in the "Big Fish was fantastic" camp, too.
• Does The poster for C&CF remind anyone of Clockwork Orange? (yet another fine book => crap movie convesion, IMHO, but thats another story)
• Hmm. Should have checked that link - they're blocking offsite referers...
• Yes my comment was a snark but I was interested in hearing peopl's opinions. The name Tim Burton seems to generate a lot of excitement but frankly I nearly always find his films disappointing. Mars Attacks was probably the unfunniest comedy I have ever seen. He also wrecked the Planet of the Apes, a crime for which he should be put on trial. fwiw I like Peewee's Big Adventure and Betelgeuse.
• The original WW movie deeply frightened me. Something about those Oompa Loompas. RD was a cornerstone of my childhood. Anyone else read "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Six More"? Or his memoirs-- "Boy" and. . . the other one I forget? He had a very difficult childhood involving the awesome cruelty of English private schools. . . Thus the darkness of childhood/imaginative escapes were thematic in his work. TB has made many good movies and is a favorite. Big Fish was beautiful. Pee Wee's BA is another cornerstone. Planet of the Apes was terrible.
• It's not a remake. Yeah -- "It's a reimagining." FWIW, I generally like Tim Burton movies, and I generally like Johnny Depp. And I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the Gene Wilder version of this film. But this teaser trailer for the new one does make me a little uneasy.... maybe it was just that awful and annoying song they were playing in the background. But I'll give 'em the benefit of the doubt, for now at least.
• little nemo - the adult one was "Going Solo" and I loved both autobiographies as a kid. I still remember his time as "fag" and the story of getting his tonsils out, and I haven't read that since I was about ten.
• Here's the trailer for Batman Begins.
• I liked the song in the trailer, but then I'm a big fan of the "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you! I'mnottouchingyou!" brand of annoying humor. Because in my heart of hearts, I'm twelve.
• Maybe the song is supposed to be annoying, like the guy in those one commercials. Or maybe it's supposed to be annoying to create tension and other anxieties when looking at Wonka. Or maybe the song is actually really good, and noone can tell.
• tracicle-- thanks. going solo. *slaps forehead* From the trailer it looks as though the art design is all 60's modish. Which is pretty interesting in its own right but not exactly what I had in mind when I read the book. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Johnny Depp looks very bizarre. He's a great actor, capable of transforming himself for each role.