It seems pretty dull to me. I would not have picked the kid from Dune to play Willy Wonka. Seems like an odd choice.

Why not Chalamet? He seems like a good choice. The better question seems to be: Can something not pretty tightly tied to Dahl's work be worth doing?

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
The better question seems to be: Can something not pretty tightly tied to Dahl's work be worth doing?

Answer: No. At least not in today's Hollywood. I predict a heavy reliance on cheap gags, visual effects, easter eggs and less subtle references to the source material in lieu of original plot or faithful adaptation of Wonka's backstory.

All of this will likely culminate in a finished narrative that directly contradicts or at least creates conflicts with Dahl's version (the only real version) of the character.

They sure as hell won't be exploring the original origin story of the Oompa-Loompas. Maybe the orange version.

-Rob

There is no comparison to the original with Wilder at the helm. Wilder's portrayal was perfect for the character. The Depp version was creepy but maybe this one might be ok. My kids are all grown now but I still watch the original from time to time.

I'm intrigued. Definite maybe.

Tony.

That actor can act. He's pretty damn good despite his young age. That stated, I'm not very interested and the trailer looked kind of boring. Maybe that's just me. Gene Wilder owned the part...

I'm in the minority of people who never liked the book or the movies. But I'll give this film a chance because I like Jim Carter and several other actors.

Had no idea a remake of Wonka is coming out, I guess par for the course in Hollywood.

Based on the trailer, I assume the black people in this period piece are not Oompa Loopas.

As a Gen-Xer, I grew up on the '70s version. That meant more to me than, say, The Wizard of Oz. Of course I'm partial to Gene Wilder. I prefer his sinister, psychotic approach. Chalamet seems like pretty good casting, but he doesn't seem like the type that would send children down a nightmare tunnel featuring millipedes and beheaded chickens. That's how my childhood rocked.

You know, the '70s Wonka wasn't a box office success initially. It didn't develop its following until TV airings and home video. Roald Dahl hated it, and refused to have its sequel filmed. I found that sad, because I've always wanted to see Great Glass Elevator developed into a movie, instead of the remake and prequel.

I don't understand why movies are continually remade. What's wrong with the originals. Are writers/producers/etc. just too stupid to come up with something original?

It’s so very carefully diverse I noticed.


Gene Wilder will always be Wonka for me

quote:

Originally posted by urbanwarrior238:
I don't understand why movies are continually remade. What's wrong with the originals. Are writers/producers/etc. just too stupid to come up with something original?

No, studios are very risk averse these days. Remakes and sequels have built-in audience awareness, and a somewhat already-established fanbase. You don't have to introduce the public to a new and foreign concept. In the old days with only theaters, and later network TV, as the only way to show films, studios could afford to be creative and take chances. Now with the internet, streaming, and cable TV, there's too much media vying for people's attention.

It makes sense. Release a remake of Jaws, and the public is, "I know what that is!" Release a similar movie and call it Danger in the Deep, and everyone's like, "What the hell is that?"

This isn’t a remake of anything. It’s a prequel. Prequel, remake/reboot, and sequel are not interchangeable and mean different things.

Anyway… that’s part of the problem here. If it WAS a remake/reboot (like the Depp/Burton version), at least there would be a quality story to copy.

Dahl didn’t write a Wonka prequel of any sort - only the origin story told in Charlie. So this is all 100% modern Hollywood writing.

-Rob

Either way, that trailer looked booooring. I am sure teenage girls will love to see Chalomet but this movie looks like a turd.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
This isn’t a remake of anything. It’s a prequel. Prequel, remake/reboot, and sequel are not interchangeable and mean different things.

Yes, true. But the built in brand awareness is the motivating factor in all of those.

quote:

Originally posted by urbanwarrior238:
I don't understand why movies are continually remade. What's wrong with the originals. Are writers/producers/etc. just too stupid to come up with something original?

More that producers won't risk money on something that is totally new because it is risky. Sequels and remakes have, in their minds, some built-in audience.

quote:

Originally posted by cheesegrits:
I'll give this film a chance because I like Jim Carter.

MY wife got me interested in Downton Abbey years ago. I didn't think I'd like it, but enjoyed it enough to re-watch it numerous times.

I've seen him in a few other things but his character Carson is excellent work, IMO.

I never saw the original and probably won't see this, but I wouldn't call the trailer boring or dull.

Maybe I'll stream it someday.

quote:

Originally posted by LastCubScout:

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
This isn’t a remake of anything. It’s a prequel. Prequel, remake/reboot, and sequel are not interchangeable and mean different things.

Yes, true. But the built in brand awareness is the motivating factor in all of those.

not a yuge fan of the Wilder or Depp movie, just not my thing,

buy will likely see this one,

I think the Depp/Burton version kinda in the same vein as the Chris Pine as Capt Kirk Star Trek movies, similar but alternative univerise way

quote:

Originally posted by urbanwarrior238:
I don't understand why movies are continually remade. What's wrong with the originals. Are writers/producers/etc. just too stupid to come up with something original?

Doesn't seem like a remake. More of a prequel. I had the same thought before I watched the trailer.

That being said, the trailer was meh.