Current Events > Which Willy Wonka film is better?

(+) Yeah! (+)

No, I kind of like the movie.

---

AvantgardeAClue posted...

The Burton one had some improvements to the story (expanding on Wonka and Charlies families, showing what happened to the kids who were eliminated, tying Grandpa Joes knowledge of the factory into his knowledge of Wonka) but the original one is of course instant nostalgia

I think people who hate the 2005 one needs to watch it again; apparently its more accurate to the books

The way I see it, the additional material in relation to Wonka's childhood and shoehorning Grandpa Joe into a former employee is simply addressing nitpicks. We didn't need the end of the movie to extend past the end of the factory tour, and we didn't need a shallow husk of an Oscar Bait storyline where Willy fucking Wonka, an eccentric candy mogul, reconnects with his estranged dentist father who alienated his son through overzealous, stringent dental hygiene in opposition to Wonka's love of candy. It's absolute wank.

And yes, there are elements of the movie which are more faithful to the original book by Roald Dahl. Scenes like Wonka being commissioned to create a life-size Taj Mahal out of chocolate for an Indian prince to live in, the lyrics to the Oompa Loompa's songs and Veruca Salt being taken away by a bunch of squirrels instead of being judged as a bad egg is all faithful to the book. But the expanded Wonka elements are completely new to the 2005 adaptation, the Oompa Loompa's songs changing tone and genre so wildly is a function of the movie, and Depp's Wonka is simply sterile and uncharismatic as an eccentric, mysterious owner of a beloved candy factory.

At the end of the day, Gene Wilder embodied the spirit of an outlandish, silly candy factory owner better than Johnny Depp did. The original movie, with its deviations and flaws, embodied the spirit of the book more than the remake. Accuracy doesn't mean shit if the end product is a sterile, mechanical product that feels like it's going through the motions for the sake of appeasing purists.

Please, tell me that the 2005 Wonka movie is better than the original Wonka movie because the Oompa Loompas use the same song lyrics as the book. Tell me that a needlessly shoehorned backstory for Willy Wonka is a sorely needed addition to the story that trumps any and all deviations and additions to the narrative introduced by the original movie.

Because even the silly ending of the original movie, which consists of Charlie, Grandpa Joe and Wonka soaring through the sky in a glass elevator, is more faithful to the spirit and content of the original book than a Michael Jackson-looking Johnny Depp hugging Christopher Lee in a reunion of father and son. Accuracy doesn't mean shit if the property feels like a shallow husk of what it's adapting, and if we're arguing on the merits of accuracy, a significant chunk of the 2005 movie goes out of its way to retcon or justify the most pointless shit to the point of delaying the endjngmif the movie for what feels like another 30 minutes of pointless wank.

If you prefer the 2005 movie, that's your business. But I don't think the 2005 movie has a leg to stand on in regards to faithfulness to the source material. It's a bunk argument, and if your barometer of quality is "these characters said the exact same words as the book characters", then I honestly suspect that your viewing habits are as joyless and soul-sucking as Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptation.

---

One thing that really surprises me is that apparently Dahl said he didnt think Gene fit his vision of what Wonka would be like. Its unfortunate, since I feel like the general perception is that Gene was a perfect Wonka for most of us.

Come with me, and youll be, in a world of pure imagination.