Quote :

"^please to watch movie again"

please to fuck off, i own the movie

i was merely passing on an opinion that DAHL didn't fucking like the first movie, and if you want to argue an opinion that is fucking stupid

Quote :

"Now, as to Roald Dahl: from all reports, Dahl was less than enthralled with the adaptation. I suspect that it's because Dahl's work had teeth to it, generally speaking, and the incisors here have been blunted and softened a bit."

12/12/2004 11:59:05 AM

then that opinion as to why he didn't like the movie is wrong because it is a very dark and creepy movie...

so please to watch the movie again

12/12/2004 3:53:21 PM

^ believe it or not, I'm gonna take Dahl's word over yours on that one...

12/12/2004 4:06:30 PM

find me an actual quote instead of some speculation by somebody who may or may not know what they're talking about

and i'll believe you

12/12/2004 4:07:39 PM

http://www.dealtime.com/xMPR-~PD-45348~PT-xMPR~RI-157943828100

[Edited on December 12, 2004 at 4:25 PM. Reason : 215]

12/12/2004 4:24:43 PM

What teeth was Dahl talking about? When I read Charlie and The Choclate Factory it didn't really strike me as having "teeth". What does he mean by that?

12/12/2004 5:00:46 PM

by teeth they meant there was a point to the story other than some kids going to a candy factory

the movie totally took out whatever alternative meaning there was in the book

i think

12/12/2004 5:09:03 PM

Fuck all the nay sayers. I agree, Depp looks a bit freaky as Wonka, but I think this movie will be good.

12/12/2004 11:59:58 PM

#1: These pictures prove once and for all that Johnny Depp does, in fact, have a vagina.

#2: This movie will suck just like the original and almost as bad as the book that started all this bullshit.

#3: When the fuck will Hollywood do something original for a fucking change?

oh and #4: I'll still go see it if people say its good after it comes out.

12/13/2004 1:11:05 AM

^^^ - I haven't read the book in a long time, but the movie had teeth. The reviewer in that link obviously had his mind made up and was unwilling to accept any alternate explainations. The movie clearly showed that the other 4 kids were disgusting and they got what was coming to them. They were made out to be obnoxious brats, and Wonka's attitude towards them clearly showed what he thought about kids like that. And the songs couldn't make it more obvious - "what do you get when your kid is a brat/lounging around like a siamese cat", etc etc.

The reviewer mentioned when the girl fell through the bad egg chute because she was "too heavy" - you fucking retard, it was a metaphor - do you know what that is?

Then the part with Snaggletooth, or whatever his name was, with the gobstopper recipe was to show that Charlie was, in fact, a good and honest kid who wouldn't sell the recipie for some money. Wonka didn't pick Charlie because he was "the only kid left". He picked him because he was the only one that passed the test by giving the candy back before leaving.

12/13/2004 11:00:17 AM

Quote :

"#1: These pictures prove once and for all that Johnny Depp does, in fact, have a vagina. #2: This movie will suck just like the original and almost as bad as the book that started all this bullshit. #3: When the fuck will Hollywood do something original for a fucking change? oh and #4: I'll still go see it if people say its good after it comes out. "

#1 You should like him even more then right? Guys love vaginas.
#2 If you don't like the original, or the book, why are you reading this topic?
#3 and #4 WHY GO SEE SOMETHING YOU'RE BITCHING ABOUT. Hollywood doesn't do anything new because people like you bitch, BUT STILL GO SEE THE MOVIE. Way to be a hypocrite.

12/13/2004 11:11:57 AM

^ way to take my post seriously. I'm sorry I insulted your gay little movie and your hero Johnny Depp, don't let me stop you worshipping his pictures. thx.

[Edited on December 13, 2004 at 11:49 AM. Reason : girls dont jerk it]

12/13/2004 11:47:42 AM

Hollywood would still make the movie even if no one cared.

12/13/2004 12:07:51 PM

Quote :

"Depp's "Creepy" Performance To Scare Audiences Johnny Depp is eager to terrify young audiences with his "creepy" performance as Willy Wonka in his latest movie Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. Annasophia Robb, 11, who plays Violet in the Tim Burton movie, was impressed with the Hollywood actor's friendliness on set - but admits his Marilyn Manson-inspired onscreen performance was terrifying once cameras start ed rolling on the latest take on Roald Dahl's popular book. Robb says, "His character is very creepy from any other Willy Wonka you've seen. I'm not allowed to say very much about that movie. He's such a normal guy, he treats everyone with the same amount of respect. He invites us to his trailer to make us feel more comfortable with him." "

2/15/2005 12:09:29 PM

where can I get one of those coats?

2/15/2005 12:30:24 PM

i'm seeing this

2/15/2005 12:33:35 PM

Quote :

""His character is very creepy from any other Willy Wonka you've seen. I'm not allowed to say very much about that movie. He's such a normal guy, he treats everyone with the same amount of respect. He invites us to his trailer to make us feel more comfortable with him." "

haha, now that is creepy

2/15/2005 1:26:08 PM

After seeing the trailer im a bit let down. i was expecting it to be alot darker but then again the trailer could convey the wrong idea just to alter peoples expectations. Thats me hoping what it is...

i take it back. After watching the movie without sound it looks alot better. that song is horrible.

[Edited on February 15, 2005 at 1:40 PM. Reason : bah]

2/15/2005 1:37:55 PM

he looks enough like michael jackson in the photos...

2/15/2005 1:39:53 PM

^^I think the song is supposed to be horrible and annoying.

2/15/2005 2:43:46 PM

and keep in mind

tim burton didn't make that trailer

2/15/2005 4:15:44 PM

I'll take 5 of these



God this movie's going to make me want to eat some huge caramelly chocolate bars so bad.

[Edited on February 15, 2005 at 4:31 PM. Reason : NO RED X NOW, SUCKAHS]

2/15/2005 4:27:57 PM

so when i saw the previews, its seems like Depp was a mistake


i think they should have tried to get someone more comedy along the line of Gene Wilder who could be funny and dark at the same time


i think Jim Carrey actually would have done a very good job, maybe he is too tall though



oh and sorry if this has been discussed, i didnt read the thread

4/17/2005 1:21:07 AM

depp is just not freaking OLD enough or at least in no way looks old enough for this role. it throws off the whole plot and image

4/17/2005 1:59:38 AM

^^ Depp is just fine as a comic actor. Plz to see Jack Sparrow.

4/17/2005 2:09:32 AM

^WERD

4/17/2005 2:15:53 AM

if there was ever a type cast description of johnny depp, it would be

Quote :

"funny and dark at the same time"

4/17/2005 2:21:57 AM

fear and loathing was funny

his performace as ichabod crane was SOMEWHAT funny


potc was the most overrated movie of the last 100 years

[Edited on April 17, 2005 at 12:30 PM. Reason : oh and Wilder was younger when he played Willy, Depp is just too goddamn pretty]

4/17/2005 12:28:30 PM

i guess there needs to be a "charlie" thread


but anyway


now that the previews are out, they only reinforce my belief that depp was not the right choice for this role. he tries to be TOO quirky. Wilder played the role very understated and subtle, depp spends the whole time trying to make funny faces and do weird voces. willy wonka is supposed to be someone who seems to have all subtle qualites. he is very intelligent, yet somewhat creepy as well. depp's character seems to have the iq of a five year old.

6/28/2005 11:23:41 AM

6/28/2005 12:14:09 PM

wonka is a crazy quirky dude, read the book again

all wilder did was repeat some random poetry which wasn't even related to the book

[Edited on June 28, 2005 at 2:42 PM. Reason : p.s.--the glass elevator looks awesome! ]

6/28/2005 2:41:15 PM

well i suppose it depends on what the aim of the film was

did they intend to remake the original film?

or did they intend to make an original film based directly on the book?

if the first, depp is WAY off for the part

if the second, well it looks like its gonna be pretty bad and i havent read the books in too long. that said, i did read all the weird sequels with the glass elevators and the aliens and all that crazy shit.



ANYWAY, all i'm trying to say is the Wilder version was a classic and his portrayal is how Wonka will be set in my mind if i ever reread the books.

6/28/2005 3:03:05 PM

I'm pretty sure its been said before that Dahl wasn't happy with the first movie. This one is aimed to reflect Dahls vision more.

6/28/2005 3:08:37 PM

ok, well since its been years since i have read the books, i will abstain from any further discussion

6/28/2005 3:09:21 PM

Same here. I cant remember how crazy Wonka was in the books.

6/28/2005 3:10:43 PM

yea all i know for sure is that whatever character Depp is portraying is childish and not interesting to me at all.

6/28/2005 3:22:51 PM

Quote :

"have faith in tim burton"

though I must admit I'm having some doubts

6/28/2005 4:16:52 PM

i really like johnny depp, but that preview made him look like a total homosexual. i mean that whole "you're really weird!" just grates on my ears. hopefully its just a bad preview and the movie is better

6/28/2005 5:22:58 PM

PLANET OF THE APES

/thread

6/28/2005 6:32:27 PM

Quote :

"have faith in tim burton"

YES.

6/28/2005 6:36:59 PM

BTTT FOR THE DOUCHEBAGS

7/11/2005 3:49:00 PM

They were talking to one of the producers on 91.5(npr) today. One guy called in and said something along the lines of "hey I have kind of a negative question - why did you make Willy Wonky look like Michael Jackson? That is just weird and it makes me not want to see the film"

7/11/2005 4:27:35 PM

Going to an advanced screening tonight in Charlotte.

7/11/2005 4:29:11 PM

^^

well...


what did they say???

7/11/2005 5:55:02 PM

Just got back, and I thought it was really good. Johnny Depp is hilarious, and the entire film is just incredibly bizarre. Definitely one of the better movies so far this year. I'm not sure if it has the lasting power that the 1971 version has, but it definitely did a better job of character development and displaying Willy Wonka's humanity. If you've seen a lot of Tim Burton's movies you may notice a few subtle references to his past films. And yes, the comparisons of Wonka to Michael Jackson are very valid. I would definitely recommend seeing it.

7/11/2005 10:06:43 PM

so how did it compare to the trailers?

7/11/2005 10:41:38 PM

Hard to say, really. It's just as weird as it looks; even moreso than the trailer, in fact. The main problem with the trailer was that all of the lines were out of context, so they actually make sense and are humorous in the movie.

7/11/2005 11:09:35 PM

haha, yea me and my sister said somethin about that. "all his stupid one-liners from the previews actually make sense now"

vulcan, what theater were you in? AMC 22, theater 22 or 12?

[Edited on July 12, 2005 at 1:05 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2005 1:04:35 AM

what did you think about it tracer?

7/12/2005 1:23:17 AM

i thought it was pretty good. depp was good, and the kids were all right on for their roles. the only thing i didnt like was the oompa loompas. their songs were strange cause they were meant to sound almost like pop music, and they did crazy dances, and all that was fine, but i couldnt understand a word of their songs other than the kids' names. also, the flashback of their backstory dragged a bit. otherwise, i pretty much echo vulcan's points. their was a lot more character development and explanation, and i'd definitely recommend it, especially to a fan of burton's previous works.

7/12/2005 1:27:49 AM