which one was more like the book and did Tim Burton neglect the character of Charlie
2006-10-27 07:03:33 · 18 answers · asked by djkhgftieqryit 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
which one was more like the book and did Tim Burton neglect the character of Charlie (disregarding the fact that Roald Dahl refused the proper title for the musical as the lyrics were different, the oompa loompas were different and Dahl wanted Spike Milligan to play Willy Wonka). Also - if the musical was so unlike the book then how come Roald Dahl was credited with the Screenplay and many authors aren't always happy about film adaptations. this is a question of narrative and characters etc...
2006-10-27 11:06:26 · update #1
Actually, they should have made "Charlie and--" with someone more like Gene Wilder. Willy Wonka as I read him was a kindlier sort and far less weird than Johnny Depp makes him. Depp's Wonka was a creepy flashback to "Edward Scissorhands." He should stick with playing a pirate.
2006-10-27 14:34:00 · answer #1 · answered by perelandra 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Like the others said, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was just that... Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is just that.... Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
I am as a rule not a huge fan of remakes of old films, but I do think that Tim Burton did a great job. And the writer of the book Charlie and The Chocolate Factory infamously hated the original movie... but would have loved the new one (apartently)
They shouldn't swap titles, each are good in their own right - the first as a childrens classic.. and the second as a new generations classic (plus Jonny Depp is hot as hell!!)
2006-10-27 07:14:57 · answer #2 · answered by bud_weis_err69 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I always thought it odd they changed the title to "Willy Wonka and" for the first movie. Gene Wilder's a funny guy but it's not like he was the sole focus or the only selling point for the film.
"Charlie and..." being the title of the book I think it should always be used, but ironically this time around Johnny Depp really WAS a big selling point and Willy had more to do.
The Tim Burton version certainly doesn't neglect Charlie, and in some ways is more faithful to the book (and in others, makes stuff up).
But it's probably for the best they have separate titles so we know which one is which.
2006-10-27 07:12:22 · answer #3 · answered by Koko Nut 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Gene Wilder was not allowed to use the title of the book as it was not how Roald Dahl had wanted it. Also in the book as originally written and published the OOMPA LOOMPAS were actually pygmies, but it was decided that it was offensive, so it was changed in subsequent publishings.
2006-10-27 07:54:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I prefer the 1971 version, you can never surpass the original, especially with a story as great and Willy Wonka!
2016-05-22 01:07:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are right, but I think it's more the case that Johnny Depp just stole the show with his performance, rather than Tim Burton tipping the balance.
2006-10-27 07:10:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they should burn the later movie and make the sequel "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", the story of Charlie's search for a wife.
2006-10-27 07:06:54 · answer #7 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't seen the Johnny Depp one, but classics are always 100 times better than the remakes. I haven't read the book but that is a great film.
2006-10-27 07:12:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is more Willy Wonka's movie.
"Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" SUCKS! I hate that movie and anyone who likes it.
Not that I like "Charlie and...." much better.
2006-10-27 07:05:19 · answer #9 · answered by Gypsy Rose 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. The first one is Charlie's story. The book is the second one.
2006-10-27 07:04:49 · answer #10 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋