ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- Picking up where we left off, the new journey of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory after Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory came out. New efforts are undertaken to re-adapt the book to film, leading to Tim Burton and Johnny Depp's 2005 version.
![โรงเรียนดัดสันดาน นักเรียนเถื่อน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vRKPeXn4Fl4/mqdefault.jpg)
The release of this movie only two months after Revenge of the Sith caused one of my friends to remark "Soon I will have a new dentist..." in perfect Emperor Palpatine voice as soon as Christopher Lee appeared on screen. The proximity of those two films is probably what made the role so memorable for me.
Honestly, as someone who I think appreciates this film more than the average person, I appreciate what seems to be a very compassionate and honest inventory of what made the film what it is and why it wasn’t a bad idea from the start.
That freeze frame at 26:53 makes me want to write a crossover fanfic where a super-powered Veruca Salt seeks revenge on Squirrel Girl from Marvel Comics.
I would watch that in a heartbeat! Heck, just a film where a crippled Veruca gathers the other injured and disgraced kids who survived the factory and puts together a cabal revenge plot would be amazing, IMO.
"That squirrel was the best actor I'd ever worked with!" - Tim Burton, probably.
I did not expect to be reminded of Chuck's 'The Sound of Silence' video for Seven at the end of the 'Survival Instinct' review. Well done, as always.
"Tim Burton was picked because of his work on James and the Giant Peach"
THAT'S IT! It should have been stop motion! THEN it would have brought something fresh and interesting to the adaptation! Never thought of that until now.
Huh. It honestly could have. Unfortunately, Hollywood has little respect for animation.
Worked for James and the Giant Peach _and_ Fantastic Mr. Fox, both Dahl stories originally. I think stop-motion captures that weird blend of childish and ghoulish that does actually suit works like this (see also Coraline)
As co-producer for “James and the Giant Peach,” yes.
I remember seeing the poster for the remake in 2005, a simple full length photo of Depp with head tilted forward so the hat brim covered his eyes. I had honestly thought they had cast Marilyn Manson as Wonka.
I wonder what the deal is with the medieval prince bowl cut.. Wonka's supposed to have wild, curly hair. he's an eccentric weirdo, einstein hair is kinda part of the package.
@@KairuHakubi For whatever reason, the look was based on Anna Wintour.
@@JosephDavies weird, but thanks for providing an answer at least!
@@KairuHakubi I don't get it either. It's one of those things that feels like an inside joke the creators thought was wildly hilarious, yet didn't realize or didn't care that 99% of the audience wouldn't get it and would just find it unjustifiably weird instead.
@@JosephDavies Indeed.. well in this case, I feel like it's not weird _enough._ he just comes off like a stuffy oldtimey prince or something, rather than an eccentric weirdo. it's an inherently subdued, very feminine hairstyle.. Whereas curly hair has always been considered weird and outlandish, I've gotten sh̷it for mine my whole life lol
It certainly was no surprise that Johnny Depp got the role of Willie Wonka because of course Tim Burton would cast Depp, I certainly never minded it because Johnny Depp always delivers and while not his best role, his performance was no exception.
This was my first wonka movie experience ever so I will admit to having a soft spot for it despite its obvious inferiority to the 1971 movie.
I think that was where a lot of the conceit against the movie came from back then, which is fair. Nowadays when looked at by itself its a fine adaptation with a lot of things I like. The kids were all well casted and their time to shine memorable in their own way. I liked the different approaches to the songs with different styles for each kid. And in a way it was a lot closer to the original book.
It is obvious though that in the battle for wonka supremacy, the 1971 movie dominates. Its no surprise that the 2023 Wonka would take much more inspiration from that one.
Tim Burton wanting his Wonka to hate kids really shows how strange a choice he ended up being for this. When I read the book I never got that impression. It felt to me like he loved good children and hated bad ones. But a Wonka who hates all children strikes me as one who would be unlikely to run a candy factory, especially one so bizarre.
It was likely for two reasons. One, Dahl was notoriously curmudgeonly about kids. And two, Burton likes to be weird for the sake of weird.
The backstory has me wondering how "trained squirrels to mob children" looked on someone's resume. For me the Depp movie isn't in the same class as the Gene Wilder version, mainly down to the portrayal of Wonka himself. But I didn't think it was a bad movie.
You can add the X-Files to Deep Roy's impressive resume. 🙂
It's funny that none of the film adaptations give Wonka a goatee, which he has in the book.
Not even Tom and Jerry in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Family.
I always said Martin Short would have made a fantastic Wonka had they done one in the 90s or so.
@@dvader518 Well in fairness that one is literally "tom and jerry visit specifically the original movie" which ... bizarre as it is, does track with keeping everything accurate.
@@KairuHakubi Except with the Slugworth plothole.
@@dvader518 oh did they change that part? I haven't actually seen it, just laughed my ass off at the NC review.
I know a lot of people give this movie shit but i still like it.
Me too, love it.
I never see anyone giving this movie $#!+
@@ForrestFox626 Read this comment section and you will. But I love this movie... never really liked the original very much. Probably for the same reasons that Dahl didn't.
I thought htis was a reupload of your last weekes video because it got taken down for a second :D
Gary Ross was attached to this at some point??? That I didn't know. He'd go on to direct The Hunger Games - another flick I'd like your overview on Chuck. I don't know where to go to make these requests anymore...
5:17 - I'll have to admit, having Patrick Stewart play Willy Wonka would have been a choice.
Can you not just imagine Stewart doing the "I said good day, sir!" scene? :)
You'd think Chralie would grow up to become a dentist, but instead he became a SURGEON, DR HAN, HE IS A SURGEON, HE IS A SURGEON!
And then WB made a soulless copy of the original just to hold on to the rights longer: Tom and Jerry: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.
It's a weird case of "well, the original creator didn't like it, and objectively, it was a flawed adaptation. we could do better now" leading to "look, we used the real lyrics from the book! we left in the squirrels! it's so much more accurate now, right?" and then "we came up with a clever way to modernize Mike, isn't this great?" and it's like yeah yeah we could debate that, but... it's pretty moot, because you missed the point of the TONE.
Dahl's stuff is supposed to be thrillingly transgressive. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was his first kids' book, and while it has a lot of kinda stuffy oldtimey "taking a long time to just explain things" moments, other than that, he hit the ground running. Every kid is just delighted by how it all goes against the rigid rules of propriety, how gleefully absurd it is. just as sure as Alice in Wonderland did with boring school subjects and nursery rhymes. it's all warmly mean-spirited, letting the good guys suffer at first and then earn their ending in classic fairy tale style, and the bad guys be hoisted by their own petards.
But this thing... it just thought it should be spiteful and mean non-stop, and thoroughly unpleasant. as a joke, I guess? If it were parody, I could see that hitting. but it's trying to be an adaptation...
I'm sad that we live in the timeline where Robin Williams didn't get the role. He would have been a worthy successor to Gene. Laughed out loud that the Dahl estate vetoed Jim Carrey! Bullet dodged!
It seems like Williams might have been inclined to duplicate Wilder's performance, as that would be more in line with his own style. Which is probably why they didn't cast him.
I was kind of a hipster before it was cool to be a hipster but I wasn't as cool as a hipster and I only did it because I didn't like popular things. When it came out Burton and Depp were very popular so I just kind of went "nope" The idea that Jackson styled himself after Wonka so the adaptation seemed to ber inspired by him but it was the other way around is interesting.
Interesting how an effort to be more faithful to the book, and to add depth to Wonka's character made for a worse movie.
I was the target age, maybe just a year or two older, but for me, johnny depp always had the vibe of the weird local Children's entertainer who is off putting bordering on creepy and as someone who likes maybe 2 of Tim Burton's works aesthetics and finds the rest gaudy. This was never going to be for me. It also adds Wonka lore which... no. Wonka should not have lore.
A movie with Charlie’s script and Gene Wilder in place of Johnny Depp would be the ideal adaptation imo.
Also shoutout to the playground rumor that Marilyn Manson was totes gonna be Willy Wonka you guys
This movie is my first and only brush with this story to this day. I didn't much care for it.
Unlike what seems like everyone else here, I like both movies. They're just very different takes from a base source.
Nostalgia for the old shouldn't keep you from enjoying new things, and new takes on things, and if it does, I think you're a sad, sad husk of a person.
Good way to go about it. And considering the way many view nostalgia these days plus Chuck's aside on it in the last video, there are indeed many sad husks in thr world.
would you agree that the tone and tack this movie took would have worked much better for the sequel? I've always felt that way, shame they couldn't adapt it.
@@KairuHakubi Not especially, no, I wouldn't agree.
Was the beginning of a trash error of Burton. Honestly surprised corpse bride didn’t get dragged with it.
For the record, I absolutely despise this movie... and from the sound of it's production, yeah... it sounds, at least to me, like yet another insincerely produced, executive meddled, too-many-cooks situation with a movie put together by a committee with mandates out the butt, and an over-opinionated auteur with an agenda against the original. I guess it turned out like a mess because it's making was a mess. Like a candy bar made by 70 pairs of hands to be bitter instead of sweet just because it's the "alternative" thing to do.
I disagree entirely, it's clear to me that people involved with the production cared about the book and made a sincere film. You can dislike the creative choices but it's just as much an original effort as the 1971 film
1:50 just to be pedantic, the original book didn't mention vermicious k'nids, the movie did. but the movie's screenplay was written by Dahl, so I think he was working that in.
Um... of course the squirrels weren't real.. they were deliberately made surreal.. Hoaxes are really taking hold lately, there's this hoax that Garfield was based on a comic Jim Davis did 2 years prior called Jon. And nobody is questioning why all the sources, all the edits, all of it is from 2023. it's everywhere. because everybody is stupid but me.
Ah, but even more pedantic, I said "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," as an indication I was referring to his script for the film and not to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the book.
@@sfdebris This is why you're the master.
Or the.. senator, or whatever that thing is at the end of videos that sometimes means it was a patron thing and sometimes something else. I never quite got a grasp on that.
@@KairuHakubiAll hail the overlord! All hail the overlord!
Johnson Anna Williams Linda Williams Jason
I went into this movie the first time, wanting to love it so much, and just not buying it for a second. It never felt like a real place or real people to me, not even for a minute. It's not a bad re-adaptation, it just entirely fails to suspend my disbelief, in every aspect of it - acting, storytelling, set design, special effects. It's one big nope from me.
More proof Tim Burton just has no imagination about who he works with whether it be in front or behind the camera
He likes his Production Posse
Even though I had seen the original first, I vastly prefer this version. Part of it is my love of Tim Burton's works, but also the original felt really cheap. Like, imagine if the Wonka Experience in Scotland actually had a budget and the approval of the Dahl estate, and you'd come close to what the original looked like.
Some people can’t be helped. Guck off
Cheap? No, that’s you projecting, especially by doing a bad comparison to the scam exchibit
@@Assasin2 No, people called it cheap even before then.
Boy howdy, am I glad Johnny Depp got the role of Willy Wonka and not Christopher Walken as that would have been just downright creepy ... but given his legal troubles at the time with letting little boys into his Neverland ranch, uh, let's just forget it!
Um...
Tim Burton: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory isn't a classic film.
Oh, so he's an idiot.
He's entitled to his own opinion
when it was really the writer John August’s doing
Then again John august is poor man John Logan. Both gay gay with great idea that need to put on leach.