|
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spike |
Adaptations.
Anything that isn’t a story’s original medium is an adaptation. Even when Sin City is directed by Frank Miller (the guy who wrote and drew the comic) and almost every frame is composed to mirror the comic, it’s still an adaptation. How true something is to the spirit of the original source is where things get murky.
Which brings me to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Visually impressive, in places it’s a dead-on vision of Roald Dahl’s book. The first 15 minutes or so is an almost perfect adaptation, updating the frame of reference ever so slightly without making a nuisance of itself. But then, Willy Wonka shows up in person and something goes horribly wrong. The visuals are still working well but the heart and soul of the movie goes very askew.
Johnny Depp, what the Hell are you doing?!
This isn’t the diminutive and eccentric sagely figure I saw in the original illustrations from the book or imagined moving through my mind. This isn’t even Gene Wilder’s strange legalese-spouting chocolateer from the original movie adaptation. Johnny Depp is just out somewhere - going, going... gone. Where he’s at isn’t somewhere empathetic or entertaining... it’s just creepy, plastic and slightly repulsive. His jerky mannerisms mixed with the grotesque pallor of his skin and a halted voice like some sort of cowardly eunuch left me with an empty hole where there was supposed to be delight. Who thought this was a good idea? It boggles my mind that dailies would come in and no one could take a clear view of this and go “No, there’s something missing - right here – right here dead center where there should be a wonderful character.”
Most of the casting is quite inspired. Charlie’s entire family is fantastic, the kids are pretty sharp and everything else is raring to go. The Oompa Loompas could’ve been done with a little less modern trappings and techno music, but even that wasn’t a boat sinker. All the film needed was a ringmaster to direct the circus. A special Willy Wonka to fill it in and make the whole thing magical. What they got was a jaw-clenching unlikeable twitchy creep with a completely unnecessary sub-plot heaped on to make the whole thing crash under its own weight.
Adaptation can take liberties with the source but it has to be like a nature hike where you “leave no trace of your passing”. Changes should be as seamless as possible, especially when the source material is extremely well known. Taking Tom Bombadil out of Fellowship seems like a smart move when you read that portion of the book and realize that it has nothing to do with the core of Lord of the Rings. Adding in brutally overwrought flashbacks of Willy Wonka’s childhood and wrenching the ending into a creepy and emotionless father and son reunion that was never in the book? What did that add to the tale? What part of the original story was strengthened by it or made clearer?
I left the theatre disappointed and wondering why creative people have to on things that worked just fine the way they were. If you have to bugger with things... create original stories not adaptations. Look at what you're doing and ask "Would I want someone to alter my work this much from the source?" If the answer is "No" then rethink your strategy instead of assuming you know better than the original creator who crafted the material you loved enough to want to adapt it in the first place. |
|
|
| TrickDaddE |
| Thanks for the heads up Siskel & Ebert!!! |
|
|
| Spike |
| no prob skipper! *high 5*:stongue: |
|
|
| Euphorica |
| whoa, just watch the movie :crazy: :haha: |
|
|
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
I still haven't seen this movie...but I definatly want to. I'm a huge Johnny Depp (and Chocolate Factory) fan.
I know this movie will be non-comparable to the original though. I was watching ET or something like that too, and the makers of this movie even said that though...that this movie is not here to try to become the next Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory...it was just an updated version. In no way did they to overshadow the original, nor did they think they would.
Anyway...I've heard mixed things about the movie...really good...decent...bad. I want to see it anyway, at least once. |
|
|
| vickyvale |
I saw it Tuesday night. Not having seen the original to compare it too...I would have to say I really liked it. I am a huge Johnny fan as well and I thought he was pretty funny in it. Definitely a WEIRD movie but in a good way. Very creative.
2 thumbs up for me...not way up, but up.
:D |
|
|
| Stingray |
I disagree.
I've read the book 5 times in my life and seen the original movie many times as well.
I think Depp did a fantastic job on Willy Wonka. Gene Wilder what too subdued. Depp had the childlike sillyness that Wonka had in the book. Not caring at all when a near disaster was about to happen.
I think all the flash backs in the movie were dumb and could have been left out all together. Not to mention the character of Mike. The kid in the book was not anywhere near as sinister as the devil child in the movie.
Thats my take anyway. Definatly check the movie out. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by *~LiSa-LoO~*
I still haven't seen this movie...but I definatly want to. I'm a huge Johnny Depp (and Chocolate Factory) fan.
I know this movie will be non-comparable to the original though. I was watching ET or something like that too, and the makers of this movie even said that though...that this movie is not here to try to become the next Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory...it was just an updated version. In no way did they to overshadow the original, nor did they think they would.
Anyway...I've heard mixed things about the movie...really good...decent...bad. I want to see it anyway, at least once. |
How'd I know I'd see you posting in this thread! ;) LOL :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
Jem. :toothless |
|
|
| The Wiz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stingray
I think all the flash backs in the movie were dumb and could have been left out all together. Not to mention the character of Mike. The kid in the book was not anywhere near as sinister as the devil child in the movie.
|
Yup, flashbacks were really annoying. I guess they were trying to add further plot that surely was not needed.
I also thought that Mike Tv was the only kid that didnt "make sense". He was ridiculously mean! Otherwise the casting was perfect, I loved Violet just as much as I did in the first movie, so funny.
Great movie! |
|
|
| Ex-Man |
| I feel the same way as you do.... |
|
|
| the_sauce |
my opinion is that the adaptaion of the original movie was def not the same in this movie...but the great thing about books like this is that is the imagination can give people a different interpretation....
my g/f absolutley loves the orig and after watching this one still does...tim burton just had a different interpretation of some characters esp with willy wonka...
i personnally enjoyed this movie |
|
|
| Allegory |
I saw the movie with 10 other co-workers. Many of them had read the book; I may have been the exception. We all saw the original.
We all went in deducing it would be far removed from the Gene Wilder original; primarily because it's a Tim Burton flick and we know him to be quite dark and quirky. I have been quite disappointed by his last two recent flicks and was hoping he would redeem himself.
We walked out very taken aback at how great it was. My main reason for the enjoyment is that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp really fabricated their own story; they didn't dare try to recapture the wonders of the original and I really respected that.
Does anybody recognise the guy who played the Oompa Loompa? He rocked.
Well achieved all around. The casting was impeccable, and the aesthetics were well executed.
I was more suprised that all of us thought so well of it :D |
|
|
|
|
