Nostalgia Critic: Willy Wonka Vs Charlie

Status
Not open for further replies.

fade

Staff member
Ugh, I hated the new one. Muddy backgrounds, terribly engineered music numbers (couldn't hear what the hell they were singing!), unnecessary background story, and Depp doing some of his worst acting ever.
 
Depp was horrible as Wonka. I don't know if anyone could do it better than Wilder though. Depp just came off as silly and over the top.
 
No No No No No.

I finally disagree with the Critic (and probably most of the people on this board) but the second one was MUCH closer to the Dahl version. Even Dahl himself hated the Wilder version.

Now was the first one a bad movie? Not at all, great kids flick and an interesting look at the book to movie translation. Compared to the Depp version though, that had it as close to book as possible and as a fan of the book I loved the Depp version/take on Wonka.
Depp was horrible as Wonka. I don't know if anyone could do it better than Wilder though. Depp just came off as silly and over the top.
Learn your source material before passing judgement. :slywink:
 
I did enjoy Depp's performance for the most part (although I got annoyed with his daddy issues) Do I think he made a better Wonka than the original? No but I did enjoy his take on Wonka. As for the kids I hated most of them in the new one and I guess that means they performed what they set out to do make some really irritating kids. I agree that Charlie in the new movie was a little go perfect in his ways. As for the music I usually hate music scenes in my movies but I still enjoyed the classic movies music collection more (mostly because they are burned in my head from watching the movie so much)
 

fade

Staff member
Yeah, I knew it was trying to be more accurate to the book, but at the same time, I didn't feel Depp pulled it off. It was one of those situations where you could see what he was going for, but he didn't hit it. He didn't hit anything--it was a very soulless performance. I didn't like the Burtonization of the factory, either (and I'm a Burton fan). That didn't grok at all with the childlike spirit of the book. Everything, like I said above, blended into a charred-looking mess. It doesn't hold a candle to the kooky cloth-covered gobstopper machine, for example. Then the punishments went WAAAAY over the top, obscuring the point in FX that didn't matter.
 
Depp was horrible as Wonka. I don't know if anyone could do it better than Wilder though. Depp just came off as silly and over the top.
Learn your source material before passing judgement. :slywink:
I don't care about the source material, I care about the movie. Personally I enjoyed the way Wilder portrayed Wonka. He was a bit darker, almost like he could snap at any time. Depp's Wonka was just so damn silly I couldn't take him seriously. If you want a close interpretation of the book, I'm sure your opinion will be different.
 
Yeah, I knew it was trying to be more accurate to the book, but at the same time, I didn't feel Depp pulled it off. It was one of those situations where you could see what he was going for, but he didn't hit it. He didn't hit anything--it was a very soulless performance. I didn't like the Burtonization of the factory, either (and I'm a Burton fan). That didn't grok at all with the childlike spirit of the book. Everything, like I said above, blended into a charred-looking mess. It doesn't hold a candle to the kooky cloth-covered gobstopper machine, for example. Then the punishments went WAAAAY over the top, obscuring the point in FX that didn't matter.
What a shock, we're in disagreement. As for "childlike spirit" I'm going to have to toss you in with the "haven't read it crowd", it had more of an "adult child" feel to it than a 5-10yr old bedtime story feel by a long shot.

The original was childish, childlike and too "colorful".

I don't care about the source material, I care about the movie. Personally I enjoyed the way Wilder portrayed Wonka. He was a bit darker, almost like he could snap at any time. Depp's Wonka was just so damn silly I couldn't take him seriously. If you want a close interpretation of the book, I'm sure your opinion will be different.
Well seeing as how people go rabid in the mouth, when other movies come out that deviate from the source material, I pretty much figured the same would be for Wonka. I know I didn't like the original Wonka film AT-ALL because it was catered to a "young crowd" when the book wasn't.

Also, you like the way Wilder portrayed his "character", but "Wonka" he wasn't. You thought Wilder was "darker"? :rofl:
 

fade

Staff member
I've read it. Several times. Along with most of the Dahl books. I think you're putting your own spin on it. Which is fine, but I don't get that impression from the book. I think it had dark tones to it like all Dahl, but overall, it was a children's book about children.
 
When the creator of the book says "I don't like this movie, it completly deviated from my vision" and your movie is childish and child like, I struggle to see how that's "my personal spin".
 

fade

Staff member
Well, I'll be honest. I hated how the first movie deviated from the book when I was a kid. But then, I wasn't really comparing the two movies (at first). I said I didn't like the new one. Accurate or not, on it's own merits, I thought it was a poor movie (my original point).

Also, I disagree that the original is "childish". Child-like and dark aren't mutually exclusive. There are tons of dark children's works out there.
 
Also, you like the way Wilder portrayed his "character", but "Wonka" he wasn't. You thought Wilder was "darker"? :rofl:
Like I said, Depp just seemed so cartoony I couldn't take him seriously let alone think of him as dark in any way. Also if you want to compare it book to movie, I'm sure you're right. I'm just looking at it movie to movie and which one I enjoyed more.
 
R

rvdleun

Only seen the second version, and it was pretty fun movie. Enjoyed Depp's performance, and generally enjoyed every scene with Christopher Lee in it. First one looks pretty neat too, may give it a look at some point.
 
Watched the review, now that I'm home and wow, I couldn't disagree with NC more.

Every point he awarded "Wonka" I gave to "Charlie", his reasons for them too were WAY off base with the exception of Oompa Loompas looking stranger. Otherwise, dead wrong on each point.
 
I actually thought the disconnect between Wilder and Depp was the result of Values Dissonance. Back in the 70's, it was entirely believable to see an adult guy genuinely like to be around children, shower the world in his vision of happiness, and have it be perfectly innocent.

You know who we think of these days when you think of those values? Michael Jackson.

That's why Depp came off as more awkward and more of a manchild in the Burton version: He was supposed to be a reflection of the eternal manboy persona as it exists today, of whom MJ was the best example. He was shy, he was awkward, he never seemed to know exactly what he was supposed to be doing because he never learned how to be an adult! He wasn't some sort of master manipulator; he was a lonely manchild that wanted someone to be with. But at the same time, the only people he could relate to (Children) are no longer socially acceptable to be around if your a man. It was absolutely perfect!

That being said, I think Depp was the better Wonka.
 

Cajungal

Staff member
Nice little nod to a classic cartoon at the end there.

Even though I prefer the old movie, NC should have given the Charlie movie a little more credit. Maybe he didn't like the newer movie's songs as much, but they're taken straight from the source material. I thought that was a nice touch.
 
Personally I think he shouldn't have made it obvious which he likes more in the first minute of the video. I knew from that point that he was going to tear the new Wonka apart.

I honestly don't know which I prefer overall, though, I haven't seen the original in so long. I know the 70's vibe from the Oompa Loompa songs in the original bothered the hell out of me though.
 
Here's something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. Being closer to the source material does not make something automatically better. I'm not gonna argue that the Depp movie was less faithful. But I do think it was a worse movie and a worse performance. They're separate arguments. Depp can simultaneously give a shitty performance and be more faithful to the book!
 

Cajungal

Staff member
Agree with you there. The old one was a better film in general, even if Roald Dahl didn't like it. I still liked that the new one used songs from the book, though. :D I sang along in the theater (not too loud).
 
Here's something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. Being closer to the source material does not make something automatically better. I'm not gonna argue that the Depp movie was less faithful. But I do think it was a worse movie and a worse performance. They're separate arguments. Depp can simultaneously give a shitty performance and be more faithful to the book!
But... But... Oompa loompas are little black men! I HATE the classic film oompa loompas! That's enough for me to prefer the new film.
 
I remember the first movie terrifying the hell out of me when I watched it at summer camp. I recall sitting in the darkened gymnasium, sobbing my eyes out because I thought Charlie and his grandfather were going to be shredded by that giant fan.

The second movie terrified me less, possibly because I'm a bit older now. A bit. Possibly.
 
Here's something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. Being closer to the source material does not make something automatically better. I'm not gonna argue that the Depp movie was less faithful. But I do think it was a worse movie and a worse performance. They're separate arguments. Depp can simultaneously give a shitty performance and be more faithful to the book!
That's definitely one perspective. On the other opinionated hand, Depp put himself into a character that's extremely hard to pull off and nailed it. The Dahl version of Wonka was really brought to film smoothly and the awkwardness and detachment from social interaction was really driven home by Depp's performance.

Where as Wilder fell flat as a childish (I have NO idea where everyone is getting "Psychotic/Dark/Twisted" from) and completely social "everyday man".
 
Dahl was highly involved in the production of the first movie. He wrote the screenplay (with an other guy ) and hold the production rights, so he had also a word in the casting. One explanation why he hated the first movie is that it wasn't financial successful as expected. Another reason could be that his choices for Wonka weren't available, so they got Wilder instead.
I haven't read the book yet, so I can't tell what kind of character Wonka is (in the book). If he is the socially awkward man with a past Depp Wonka or the Wilder Wonka who act like the mysterious wizard who always quoting lines. But you should know, that one actor Dahl chose was John Pertwee (Spike Milligan was his original choice, among Joel Grey and Ron Moody).
 

Shannow

Staff member
Here's something that a lot of people don't seem to understand. Being closer to the source material does not make something automatically better. I'm not gonna argue that the Depp movie was less faithful. But I do think it was a worse movie and a worse performance. They're separate arguments. Depp can simultaneously give a shitty performance and be more faithful to the book!
I wholeheartedly, 100% agree with this. And, as movie, I liked the previous version much much more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top