Willy Wonka

[13788]

Trixiville: Please forgive me if im behind the times hear, but can anyone out there give me any more info on the new Willy Wonka movie now in production in London!

I have looked at a few web-sites, but not found much information, other than a realse date (15th July 05), a cast list, and other basic information!!!!!

Anyone???

 

[jdoe86]

Follow this link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367594/

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

The Tim Burton-Johnny Depp tandem is pretty much the only one I could trust with doing a remake. Doesn't mean it will be as good as the original, but it at least has a chance.

And giving Christopher Lee a role makes it worth a look.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Erm....why? Shouldn't they do a film on the Sequel?

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

I heard that the film with Gene Wilder was a lot more lighthearted than the book. This newer film is supposed to follow the book more closely. Apparently Tim Burton is directing it.

They're are also coming out with Jurassic Park 4 & Die Hard 4 - scary!

 

[Pecker]

Originally posted by TexAssgirl@Nov 11 2004, 01:18 PM
They're are also coming out with Jurassic Park 4 & Die Hard 4 - scary!

[post=263380]Quoted post[/post]​

Ewwww.....Gag me with a spoon, Part II.

 

[Drackir]

Originally posted by TexAssgirl@Nov 11 2004, 05:18 PM
I heard that the film with Gene Wilder was a lot more lighthearted than the book. This newer film is supposed to follow the book more closely. Apparently Tim Burton is directing it.

The film was a lot darker than the novel. Gene Wilder defintly played with with a dark bitter streak, which the book willy wonka didn't have.

Personally i'm just hoping for a lack of annoying songs...

And although you can't see all of him
http://movieweb.com/movies/poster.php?id=5...ocolate+factory

 

[jonb]

Great, now I'll have that oompa-loompa song in my head all day.

 

[madame_zora]

Does anyone remember the Oompa-loompa candy? They were like big M&Ms with chocolate and peanut butter inside, yummy.

 

[Pecker]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Nov 18 2004, 10:28 PM
Does anyone remember the Oompa-loompa candy? They were like big M&Ms with chocolate and peanut butter inside, yummy.

[post=264275]Quoted post[/post]​

I&#39;m still sucking on my Everlasting Gob Stopper. <_<

 

[madame_zora]

OMFG&#33; I remember those&#33; They&#39;ve resurrected some of the Wonka candy, my daughter and I are big fans. The Wonka bars still sport the promise of a golden ticket&#33;

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

I saw those last year at Toys R Us. I don&#39;t remember what they promise for the golden ticket though.

 

[Knight-7x6]

Originally posted by TexAssgirl@Nov 22 2004, 06:11 PM
I saw those last year at Toys R Us. I don&#39;t remember what they promise for the golden ticket though.

[post=264756]Quoted post[/post]​

We have the Wonka Exploding chocolate bar thingy, Cadbury&#39;s is the best chocolate so I only had it once. It was okay hehe. That&#39;s the only Willy Wonka thing we have here, we have gobstoppers but Mr Wonka hasn&#39;t branded them they just...are.

 

[ManInLondon]

The new Charlie & The Chocolate Factory is not a musical.
The original Willy Wonka & The Chocolate factory when it came out got terrible reviews and didn&#39;t do very well at the box office.
It is still a bad film, but seems to get more affection thrown at it as the years go by. God knows why.

 

[mindseye]

It&#39;s heavy-handed in places -- and it&#39;s dated (if only today&#39;s generation&#39;s most pressing problems included gum-chewing&#33, but I wouldn&#39;t go so far as to call it a &#39;bad film&#39;. The sets and costumes were outstanding, the minor characters were memorably fleshed out (the schoolteacher only got one scene, but everyone remembers "Two?&#33; I can&#39;t figure two&#33;"), and the music helped keep the movie well-paced.

Why do you see it as a bad film?

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Originally posted by TexAssgirl@Nov 11 2004, 05:18 PM

They&#39;re are also coming out with Jurassic Park 4 & Die Hard 4 - scary&#33;

[post=263380]Quoted post[/post]​

The Die Hard 4 is more than anticipated, Jurassic Park 4 is just plain beating a dead horse, or dinosaur if you will.

But Gene Wilder&#39;s portrayal of Willie Wonka was surprising since I&#39;ve always seen him as a sweet hearted fellow with never a malicious bone in him&#33;

 

[txquis]

The reason people have affection for and allegiance to these films is that they are huge childhood memories.
My parents always rolled their eyes and called my favorite childhood films "bad",
namely WILLY WONKA and CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG.
I think it all depends on the age at which you saw the film.

Most of my pals love the original WONKA, but also are huge Tim Burton/Johnny Depp fans.
I think there is room for a reinterpretation of this piece.

I wouldnt feel the same about a remake of WIZARD of OZ, but WONKA
was never a near perfect film to begin with.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK@Dec 30 2004, 08:09 PM
The Die Hard 4 is more than anticipated, Jurassic Park 4 is just plain beating a dead horse, or dinosaur if you will.

[post=270991]Quoted post[/post]​

Yeah, Jurassic Park was really horrible, IMO. First off, the acting sucked. Secondly, it seemed to be just a way to show off special effects. And the sequels consisted largely of technobabble. (Strike that: Not only technobabble, but lousy technobabble, e.g. applying Heisenberg&#39;s uncertainty principle to animal behavior.)

It&#39;s one reason SF and fantasy in the 90s generally sucks as a genre. The special effects now dictate the plot. And the plot is drawn straight from the minds of Archimedes Plutonium and Alexander Abian.

 

[ManInLondon]

Originally posted by mindseye@Dec 31 2004, 03:58 AM
It&#39;s heavy-handed in places -- and it&#39;s dated (if only today&#39;s generation&#39;s most pressing problems included gum-chewing&#33, but I wouldn&#39;t go so far as to call it a &#39;bad film&#39;. The sets and costumes were outstanding, the minor characters were memorably fleshed out (the schoolteacher only got one scene, but everyone remembers "Two?&#33; I can&#39;t figure two&#33;"), and the music helped keep the movie well-paced.

Why do you see it as a bad film?

[post=270987]Quoted post[/post]​

I don&#39;t actually see it as a &#39;bad&#39; film, more as just a major dissapointment. I think it has a very&#39;under-par&#39; score, and should have been so much better.
I don&#39;t hate it, but I&#39;m hoping the new version will be a lot better.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Originally posted by jonb+Dec 31 2004, 10:50 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jonb &#064; Dec 31 2004, 10:50 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK@Dec 30 2004, 08:09 PM
The Die Hard 4 is more than anticipated, Jurassic Park 4 is just plain beating a dead horse, or dinosaur if you will.

[post=270991]Quoted post[/post]​

Yeah, Jurassic Park was really horrible, IMO. First off, the acting sucked. Secondly, it seemed to be just a way to show off special effects. And the sequels consisted largely of technobabble. (Strike that: Not only technobabble, but lousy technobabble, e.g. applying Heisenberg&#39;s uncertainty principle to animal behavior.)

It&#39;s one reason SF and fantasy in the 90s generally sucks as a genre. The special effects now dictate the plot. And the plot is drawn straight from the minds of Archimedes Plutonium and Alexander Abian.

[post=271180]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

I wouldn&#39;t go that far about the original there, JonB. I mean the acting talent was put together very nicely, what with Sir Richard Attenborough, Jeff Goldblum, Laura Dern and Sam Neil. And it seems like nowadays you can&#39;t find either a documentary or movie about dinosaurs without hearing the T-rex&#39;s booming roar.