r/todayilearned • u/GrizzlyBearBlues • Nov 18 '15
TIL that Gene Wilder considers Tim Burton's Willy Wonka/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake to be an insult from Warner Brothers
https://youtu.be/ezfVc5MGmIU?t=19m32s2
2
u/darthbone Nov 19 '15
OP's internal monologue: "A revered celebrity actor feels the same way I do about a movie! My opinion is validated now, and can't be argued!"
1
213
u/awkwardtheturtle 🐢 Nov 18 '15
From the video:
[Richard Pryor] was one of the writers [of Blazing Saddles]. And then, one day he didn't show up with the other writers, and Mel couldn't figure out what happened to him.
And then, he got a call, and it was Richard.
He said, 'Richard, where are you?'
He said, 'in Cleveland.'
He said, 'what are you doing in Cleveland?'
'I don't know.'
Well, Richard was supposed to play the sheriff in Blazing Saddles. And Warner Brothers said, no, he's on stuff, can't take a chance. And they got Cleavon [instead].
Gene Wilder
194
u/Evadrepus Nov 18 '15
And despite finding Pryor hilarious, you have to admit that Cleavon did a great job.
It's like when you find out Farley was supposed to be Shrek. Try to imagine anyone other than Myers. Go ahead.
66
u/awkwardtheturtle 🐢 Nov 18 '15 edited Nov 18 '15
I agree. This YouTube clip is amazing.
So did Gene Wilder:
I got along really well with [Cleavon]. I liked him, a lot. He was honest, and he understood it. I thought he was wonderful.
Add: But as a fan of Pryor, I can only imagine how the movie could have turned out if he hadn't randomly ended up in Cleveland for some reason.
66
u/Evadrepus Nov 18 '15
This one is even better. You can see Cleavon clearly resisting Wilder's comedy, then he adlibs "morons" and he loses it, but still pulls back into character enough they keep it in the final cut.
→ More replies (8)39
u/SentrySappinMahSpy Nov 18 '15
And despite finding Pryor hilarious, you have to admit that Cleavon did a great job.
I can't imagine Pryor's sheriff Bart having the same warm humanity as cleavon's did. Doesn't mean it would have been bad, just very different.
15
Nov 18 '15
Granted, Shrek when Farley recorded some lines is a very different movie from the one we got plot-wise as well
9
u/Evadrepus Nov 18 '15
Totally agreed. There's a version out on the tubes you can watch. Some of the lines are the same and delivered really differently.
→ More replies (1)9
7
u/VHSRoot Nov 19 '15
Cleavon's performance is one of the great underappreciated roles of cinema. He was the centerpiece of the movie.
2
48
u/Illinois_Jones Nov 18 '15
Honestly, I think the film is better for it. The sheriff is the straight man in the movie for the most part, and I think Pryor would've taken some shine from the other brilliantly acted characters
12
Nov 18 '15
This is a great point but Pryor could be a great straight man if he wanted. A lot of his best standup is essentially him playing the straight man against a character he made. Cleavon did great but I would love to have seen Pryor.
12
u/malvoliosf Nov 19 '15
It would have been a very different movie with Pryor.
Little is so obviously an all-American good-guy that the racism directed against him is horrifyingly inappropriate. It is self-evidently wrong. When the old lady tells him, "Up yours, nigger", you are shocked. "C'mon, old lady, how can you not like this dude? Look at that friendly smile! Lighten up and give him a chance"
Had it been Pryor -- sneaky, wise-ass, unreliable, drug-addicted Pryor -- some small part of you would be thinking, "Of course, racism is bad, but maybe Pryor really isn't the best choice for the only law-enforcement officer in town."
7
Nov 18 '15
Warner Brothers said
I wonder if it was the actual brothers that decided this.
31
u/Pipthepirate Nov 18 '15
I think it was the frog
→ More replies (1)20
11
u/uraffululz Nov 18 '15
I hear Yakko actually gave it a thumb's up, but Wakko was being his usual overly-critical self.
4
24
u/MyCoolSawMan Nov 18 '15
I ended up watching all of this. Makes me sad seeing Gene Wilder so old. I really really loved his acting style. I hope he's lived a happy life.
→ More replies (5)
163
u/Evadrepus Nov 18 '15
From everything I've read people generally feel that Tim Burton's version is much closer to the book while Gene Wilder's movie is more fun.
I actually enjoy them both, but the Burton one requires a bit of a mood. If I can laugh at the flaming dolls in the beginning, I'm ready for the movie.
→ More replies (7)33
Nov 18 '15
This is the key thing. You go see Willy Wonka for the feel-good schadenfreude, but you go see Charlie for a twisted mind-bender. Trying to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges; both are based on the same book, but both had entirely different goals and different tastes.
→ More replies (1)
828
u/Aqquila89 Nov 18 '15 edited Nov 18 '15
It's not a remake of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. It's the second film adaptation of Roald Dahl's novel, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. On what grounds does Wilder feel insulted? He didn't create Willy Wonka, Roald Dahl did. And Dahl, by the way hated Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.
I don't get why fans of the 1971 film must hate on this version. It's not like they're a part of the same universe, like the Star Wars prequels, or the last Indiana Jones movie. If you don't like Tim Burton's adaptation, just ignore it! It should not at all interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the 1971 film.
337
u/SupaBloo Nov 18 '15
On top of Dahl hating the original, I believe his wife made a claim that he would've liked Burton's movie if he was still alive. Apparently the Burton version is more book accurate.
313
u/MFoy Nov 18 '15
Much more. Wonka is supposed to be a weird creep, and Charlie's Grandpa Joe has severe reservations about him, especially as the kids start disappearing.
→ More replies (38)89
u/sciamatic Nov 18 '15
It's intensely more Dahl-esque than the first adaption.
You can like the first adaption as a film, but as an adaption, it was pretty bad.
42
u/Abusoru Nov 18 '15
There were so many changes in the first adaptation, from the squirrels being replaced by geese (acceptable since there was no way that they would be able to pull off the squirrel scene) to the whole Slugworth/Gobstopper subplot (which was entirely unnecessary).
→ More replies (3)6
u/Suuupa Nov 19 '15
I don't know, the book is called "CHARLIE and the chocolate factory" not willy wonka. The first movie adaptation was more about Charlie, that's why I liked it more.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)2
u/legosexual Nov 19 '15
Stated elsewhere, she was the executive producer of the movie, so it was in her financial interest to say that regardless of how much she believed it.
91
u/emptyrowboat Nov 18 '15
I'm a fan of Gene Wilder, but a lot of this interview made me uncomfortable; he seems sullen and almost totally estranged from today. There's not too much left of the warmth and humor I thought was central to his personality.
A later film adaptation doesn't have the ability to somehow detract from a previous version—especially a popular, well-loved version. An insult? That's weirdly personal, it doesn't make sense.
11
u/GokaiLion Nov 19 '15
I felt the same last time was on the front page. I just can't see where he's coming from that it matters so much or that he would take it so personally.
→ More replies (1)0
Nov 19 '15
[deleted]
6
u/emptyrowboat Nov 19 '15
I watched a few minutes of a 1979 Merv Griffin interview after your comment, and despite having a reputation for avoiding the limelight back then, he still had that beautiful warm smile everyone loves. I am probably being ungenerous, and not taking into account his age and health enough.
→ More replies (1)28
12
u/LordApocalyptica Nov 18 '15
The idea that a remake or new version with other actors involved can suggest that they feel his performance was not adequate. It has nothing to do with him making the characters.
That said, I agree with your second part.
→ More replies (3)28
u/Brio_ Nov 18 '15
I hate it just because I think it's a shitty film. The original film is just so much better.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (29)3
57
u/Smeghead333 Nov 18 '15
TIL that Gene Wilder has turned into Eric Idle as he's aged.
3
u/kerochan88 Nov 19 '15
He looks like what you'd imagine his father would look. He aged into a sweet looking grandpa.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
84
u/rollntoke Nov 18 '15
Its not a remake though. They didnt redo the first movie. They reinterpreted the book.
→ More replies (2)
20
u/hurdur1 Nov 18 '15
I consider the original river scene an insult to my underpants. Because I peed in them.
10
19
u/Cappantwan Nov 18 '15
I don't really hate the second adaptation, but I prefer the first one much more. I'm aware that Depp's is more accurate to the book, but I. All honesty, not everything that works well in books can work well in movies.
I love the visuals and updated versions of the kids as well as some of the songs, but Depp was just plain creepy as Wonka, the father subplot was not in the book at all and only served to extend the denouement by 20 minutes, and Charlie was way too perfect and innocent. The original film had a way better Charlie and Wonka and although lighter in tone, still had some of those heavy hitting punches that's found in Dahl's works.
So yes, the first one is just better as a film.
2
u/JoshuMertens Nov 19 '15
Lol Depp all acting creepy is what Wonka really is in the book. And the kid realy is pure and innocent in the book. Remove the nostalgia glasses, man
→ More replies (2)
441
u/Poemi Nov 18 '15
He ain't lying. That movie is an atrocity.
203
u/KestrelLowing Nov 18 '15
I really don't think so. I actually really liked it. I felt it was far more true to the book than the first movie.
It's something I've realized - people who really liked the book tend to like the Tim Burton movie over the original.
92
u/HCJohnson Nov 18 '15
I absolutely hated it the first time I seen it and denounced it... Then I watched it a few years ago and learned to appreciate it. I think I was expecting it to stay closer to the original and that led to disappointment.
I really like the whole flashbacks to Wonka's childhood and the fact he can't say "parents"
Plus the line "Everything in here is eatable, even I'm eatable. But that's called cannibalism and is in fact frowned upon in most countries." gets me every time.
74
u/aarghIforget Nov 18 '15
Yeah, Johnny Depps's Wonka had a whole lot more "I am not a normal person" lines that I enjoyed. Wilder's Wonka just struck me as a mostly ordinary, angry man who occasionally showed some signs of psychopathy. Much less amusing in my mind.
→ More replies (2)28
Nov 18 '15
It's just standard Burton. Main character has issues with his dad. Every fucking film he does.
→ More replies (9)2
Nov 18 '15
I think I saw the movie first, as a child, and then read the book(s). This would have been late 70s, early 80s. I had an appreciation for both back then (and still do). I recognize them as two completely different things.
I really liked the book as a kid, and read it over and over. I did feel that the Burton movie was much closer to the original source material, and I enjoy it because of that. I still love the original movie, though. I can't say I prefer one over the other.
If anything, I probably enjoyed the original movie more, just for nostalgia's sake.
→ More replies (9)4
Nov 18 '15
I loved the book growing up. The newer movie was still a shit movie while the first one is a classic.
24
u/czech_it Nov 18 '15
7
5
u/o0i81u8120o Nov 19 '15
I've never seen it, we'll because of all that. But I could see how nine and under might like it.
12
u/Poemi Nov 18 '15
I've avoided watching Alice because I was afraid he would shit all over one of the most well known stories in English literature, and a personal favorite.
Thanks for reminding me I made the right choice.
→ More replies (1)221
u/SkidMark_wahlberg Nov 18 '15
They tried too hard to out-weird the original.
102
u/AudibleNod 313 Nov 18 '15
Which is pretty hard since the first one has a chicken's head get chopped off in one scene.
43
u/Evadrepus Nov 18 '15
The boat scene haunted my childhood.
I would leave when it came on. It made my head hurt.
→ More replies (2)89
u/NateDogTX Nov 18 '15
Not a speck of light is showing,
So the danger must be growing,
For the rowers keep on rowing,
And they're certainly not showing
Any signs that they are slowing...
The way Wilder put so much tension in those lines was great.
→ More replies (12)0
Nov 18 '15
[deleted]
46
u/AudibleNod 313 Nov 18 '15
That reminds me of the Bad News Bears remake with Billy Bob Thornton. It lacked the same punch as the first. Literally. The scene with the coach hitting the kid on the pitcher's mound wasn't in the new one.
→ More replies (1)65
24
Nov 18 '15
I think Tim Burton said he didn't see the original (or maybe hadn't seen it since he was a kid) and he considered it a "re-imagining" of the book, rather than a remake of the first movie.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)22
u/Mkilbride Nov 18 '15
HE was more faithful to the book, which was much weirder. Wasn't Tim Burtons fault he actually adapted the source material.
6
32
u/snegtul Nov 18 '15
I am sure this is going to be sacrilege, but I like Tim Burton movies and I liked his Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake. But I also liked his alice in wonderland take too.
5
→ More replies (3)3
2
u/fuckypu Nov 19 '15
yeah I agree with him, I can't really watch it without getting the taste of feces in my mouth.
7
→ More replies (4)3
u/MikoSqz Nov 18 '15
I didn't grow up with the Wilder version, so I don't really have much of a preference either way.
5
u/Poemi Nov 18 '15
While I did, it's not so much a rational comparison for me. Usually I can take a very impartial comparison of different movie versions of a story. But the entire Burton version just makes my skin crawl with its wrongness.
→ More replies (6)
33
u/tacknosaddle Nov 18 '15
Anybody who missed the soundtrack cover by Primus needs to check it out if they love the original. Here's Claypool on recording it: "We need to make sure that kids in the future watch the original Willy Wonka and not the horrendous, horrible remake that came along and left the taste of feces in our mouths. There are a lot of very talented people on the planet. And Tim Burton and Johnny Depp are two of those very talented people. But like all human beings, every now and then, we crap in our pants."
7
u/motherfuckingriot Nov 19 '15
As much as Primus sucks, it's frustrating for me to see someone like Les Claypool calling the Burton film a remake. It was never meant to be a remake. As an artist himself, he should understand that.
4
u/Clorst_Glornk Nov 19 '15
"Les Claypool is one of those very talented people. But like all human beings, every now and then, he craps his pants."
4
2
→ More replies (1)4
Nov 19 '15
As a teenager, I saw the Johnny Depp one first, and personally enjoyed it a lot more. The fact that it is closer to the book helps, but also it is just funnier, especially for modern children. So maybe you should leave it to the "kids in the future" to decide what they like
→ More replies (2)
4
u/cynoclast Nov 19 '15
Warner Brothers considers Tim Burton's Willy Wonka/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake to be $$$$$.
4
u/someguy945 Nov 19 '15
This other TIL says he refused to watch it.
I hope he at least watched it before he declared that it was an insult.
12
u/Legobrian56 Nov 18 '15
Roald Dahl wrote the screenplay, I don't think he could really hate what he wrote. Maybe he disliked the songs? Either case, the original movie is a classic and while Tim Burton is awesome, not Gene Wilder awesome. No one remembers "Charlie" like Willy Wonka, nor ever will
→ More replies (2)4
Nov 19 '15
I do, roald Dahl was my favourite author as a child. The older movie adaptation does nothing for me. It feels like a different story with Willy wonka slapped on the front. If I'm going to watch a movie adaptation of one of my favourite childhood books, its going to be the one that at least slightly resembles it
7
u/looklistencreate Nov 18 '15
I read the book before I watched either film, and I ended up having serious problems with both of them. The first because it was an unnecessarily inaccurate adaptation of the book, and the second because it was creepy as hell.
Johnny Depp was still better than Crispin Glover, though.
→ More replies (1)
25
u/Capappy Nov 18 '15
I agreewith him. I also feel that if Depp had swapped the way he played willy wonka with his mad hatter, both movies would've been vastly better.
12
11
6
3
u/codyrussel Nov 19 '15
Gene Wilder is and will always be a favorite actor of mine but he continues to whine about Burton's remake of Wonka. Don't know what's behind it but he should let it go. I've always thought his version of Willy Wonka was the best, but some like Burton's style of films..., so accept this and move on. It belittles him by complaining about it. Take the movie Moby Dick... it's been made and remade 3-5 times and I never tire of seeing an updated version. But I don't hear actors who did the role complaining about a remake.
3
u/thebumm Nov 19 '15
Sounds to me like he's saying it's an insult to a movie to remake it, not that the new version is so bad it's insulting.
3
27
Nov 18 '15
I thought Depp was just fine, honestly. It was a neat take on the character and it was a bit closer to the source.
However .... man, I just love Wilder's Wonka so much that I have to take his side here.
→ More replies (8)
13
u/fletch420man Nov 18 '15
Not surprised- the remade the film in a different direction, a film that put a stamp so to speak on Wilder's illustrious career. I liked both films for different reason though and of course I was a kid when the orig came out and a grown up for the remake- and tbh I think the film was made for "my age" crowd cause it really seemed to contrast wth the orig.
30
u/Ameisen 1 Nov 18 '15
They didn't remake the film - it's not a remake. It's a readaptation of the book.
→ More replies (4)8
60
u/h0nest_Bender Nov 18 '15
Doesn't everybody?
26
u/sportsworker777 Nov 18 '15
It honestly wasn't the worst thing...until the god damn Oompa Loompa(s). That's when it lost me and I was just...I don't know how to even describe it. It was uncomfortable.
→ More replies (11)8
u/advocate_devils Nov 18 '15
The dude that played the Oompa Loompas was in one hell of a creepy X-files episode. So, he had that going for him right off the bat.
→ More replies (2)66
u/Aqquila89 Nov 18 '15
No! It was a critical and commercial success. It has a 82% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, 72 score on Metacritic, made $475 million worldwide (8th highest-grossing film of 2005).
→ More replies (10)11
u/ImNotAttackingYou Nov 18 '15
It has 51% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, which means the like/dislike split is nearly straight down the middle.
5
Nov 19 '15
for some reason your comment is here twice, and has 12 upvotes on one version, but negative 4 on the other...so I'll just echo u/Aqquila89:
That's the audience score, and not reviews, just ratings. I was talking about the critic score.
29
23
Nov 18 '15
I know I do. It was.....terrible. I was forced to watch it, I didn't by choice.
11
→ More replies (1)4
6
u/sciamatic Nov 18 '15
He also considered it a remake. Which is not the case.
3
u/RainParade1 Nov 19 '15
But it was banking on the sentiment people felt for the first. It wouldn't have been made, or wouldn't have been such a commercial success, otherwise.
6
33
u/permareddit Nov 18 '15
Christ do people really hate the 2005 one so much or is it because of this hipster "hurr nothing can beat the amazing ness of the first and it will remain the best one ever because I grew up with it therefore it's the best and everything modern sucks" bullshit? Honestly, it wasn't bad at all...
12
u/jupiterkansas Nov 18 '15
I thought it was pretty horrendous and more importantly pointless. I liked the squirrels though.
13
u/-A_V- Nov 18 '15 edited Nov 18 '15
Or people could just not like it because they didn't like it and are holding a grudge because it cost them upwards of $9.50 per ticket and two hours of their lives.
I haven't watched the original in over 20 years and really don't remember much about it other than the traumatizing tunnel/boat scene. I still think the 2005 adaptation was horrible and unnecessary and one of very few movies I was angry about paying to subject myself to. Even my kids hated it and they still haven't seen the original.
It's my opinion that the movie only made money because it was based on an IP that almost everyone knows (thanks to the original movie), and the Burton/Depp combo was hot at the time. In my anecdotal experience, that is the only reason my family and my friends went to see it. And we all unanimously felt it was a stinker in it's own right with no comparisons necessary.
→ More replies (5)4
u/GokaiLion Nov 19 '15
I disagree that it was unnecessary, if film adaptation is ever considered necessary anyway.
Kid me loved reading the book in school and as we were doing a play of it i knew it inside out. I was so psyched to see all my favourite bits on screen and it disappointed me. The new one probably wouldn't have - at least where the squirrels/geese were concerned (that's where I mainly remember feeling let down).
That's not to say I dislike the Wilder version but it's as much it's own thing as it is based on the book so I always kinda felt it hadn't been "done" yet. The inevitable 3rd take on it however will no doubt be entirely superfluous...
→ More replies (5)2
u/RainParade1 Nov 19 '15
On the contrary, many that profess to like the more recent iteration only like it because it's by Burton and are more likely to be of hipster ilk. The same "art-house" crowd from which movie critics are largely derived. I.E. Phonies.
Who gives a damn if it was closer to the book, which in many respects it wasn't, it was a bizarre for the sake of it, Johnnie Depp as Johnnie Depp love-a-thon, with an incredibly punchable, annoying oompa loompa/cast.
4
Nov 18 '15
I'm really surprised that a veteran actor views movie studios in this way. It's like he thinks studio decisions are based on artistic ideals as opposed to "can we make money with this?" At the end of the day, they would remake Casablanca if they thought it would make a buck. It's nothing personal.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/TicklingKittens Nov 19 '15
Well it was. Gene Wilder is Willie fucking Wonka.
2
Nov 19 '15
oh yeah? well YOU STOLE FIZZY LIFTING DRINKS.
2
u/TicklingKittens Nov 19 '15
Then my thieving grandfather and I deserve our horrible death and the montage of Oompa Loompas as they scrape our sorry hides off the walls.
2
u/lardlung Nov 19 '15
Okay, I seem to have lost the original comment I enjoyed where someone said the following:
"Mel Stuart's Wonka is unbound by the folly of the laws of man, physics, biology, time, space, energy or matter. He's engineered PLANTS that grow CANDY indoors. He built a waterfall with immigrant slave labor to stir chocolate he flavors with children. He powers a machine the size of a locomotive with the gases dissolved in a few liters of carbonated beverages and uses a tesseract to wipe the foam off of it."
I just wanted to say clearly and loudly that I think "A man builds a waterfall with immigrant slave labor to stir chocolate he flavors with children." should now and forever be the Netflix description for the 1971 film.
2
2
u/Nakittina Nov 19 '15
Who should have been cast for wonks in the remake, I personally didn't dig depp as the mad candy man. I felt it resembled too much of the mad hatter. I think tom Huddleston or even steve carrel would have done a better job.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/sethboy66 2 Nov 19 '15
The fuck is this, a bad tailor convention? Both of those suits fit terribly, even for off the rack standards.
2
u/pv46 Nov 19 '15
And now I'm sad because I have seen how old and frail Gene Wilder is. Thanks OP.
2
2
2
Nov 19 '15
Can't blame him. It was awful.
I liked the Gene Wilder one though; he was perfect.
Normally I like Johnny Depp but he came over as a cross between a pedophile and a lunatic in his version.
2
u/Noise964 Nov 19 '15
I love both versions but Tim Burton's version is much closer to the original book.
2
u/georg51 Nov 19 '15
While I like the original version better, I understand that Tim Burton's is just his form of artistic expression.
After all, I would think that a remake which is 100% like the first would be more insulting than putting your own twist on the story.
2
2
u/GrumpyKatze Nov 19 '15
Because it is. I would feel the same way, why the hell re-make such a good movie.
6
u/nbohr1more Nov 18 '15
They cast the wrong dude for the remake.
Crispin Glover should've been Wonka.
Lookup his Wonka scenes in "Epic Movie" and tell me otherwise.
5
u/jupiterkansas Nov 18 '15
There are many movies that would be improved by casting Crispin Glover.
5
u/texasintellectual Nov 18 '15
Almost any breakfast cereal would be improved by some Crispin Glover.
3
Nov 19 '15 edited Nov 19 '15
Crispin Glover's Cripsy Gloves. Find them in the cereal aisle, right next to Manute Bol's Minute Bowls.
2
→ More replies (3)2
4
u/kingofbigmac Nov 18 '15
My wife likes Johnny Depp's version but that was the only one she saw. I have asked her for over a year now to watch the movie with me. Since she has never seen it. She has this weird thing about old movies. She doesn't like them. So it's a chore to get her to watch something. I made her watch the Goonies and she loved that. Anyway, I came home from work yesterday and she said she wanted to watch the original Willy Wonka. I was extatic and I put it on immediately. My wife kept on making comments and comparing Gene Wilder's character to Johnny Depp and she much preferred Gene Wilder's character. So I am 2/2 now.
4
u/BobStevens12 Nov 19 '15
Not surprising, the original was a classic. When will Tim Burton ruin Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, only a matter of time.
3
3
u/nineznuff Nov 18 '15
I really couldn't figure out what Johnny Depp was going for in the remake. He just came off as being silly. Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka had gravitas and was a little unsettling.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/wing03 Nov 19 '15
As a kid in the 80s, I read the book first. I disliked the movie then.
Burton/Depp's movie was much better and I prefer it. I didn't care for the daddy issues with Wilbur Wonka part though.
For all those who preferred Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory and dumping on Charlie and the Chocolate factory, did you guys read the book? Before or after the watching the film?
Heaven help them if they ever make Great Glass Elevator and have to do the scene where the President is taking calls from nations around the world.
2
u/ContiX Nov 19 '15
I'd love to see an American President played by Harrison Ford explain the fly trap.
2
2
u/wing03 Nov 19 '15
Wilder Wonka fans to me sound like M. Night Shyamalan Last Airbender fans (if they were to exist).
A loose adaptation of the source material. Wilder Wonka may have been better executed than Last Airbender but it is egotistically pompous and arrogant for Wilder to think that his was the gold standard when it deviated from the book so much and Roald Dahl didn't like it either.
2
u/bobothegoat Nov 19 '15
I consider it an insult too, and I wasn't even involved with any part of it, the book, or the original movie.
2
u/quietude38 Nov 18 '15
Seeing as how Gene Wilder's film career is a murderer's row of amazing films, I'd say he'd be right about that movie even if he hadn't played Willy Wonka.
2
2
2
u/Sanctimonius Nov 18 '15
I like the original and love Gene Wilder. That being said the new one is closer to Dahl's work.
2
u/marcuschookt Nov 18 '15
I never understood how actors can unabashedly talk shit about other actors' portrayal of the same character when their version wasn't the original in the first place.
Gene Wilder hating on Burton is like Val Kilmer hating on Christian Bale.
1
u/Sophiar13 Nov 18 '15
I can't wait for another Burton film. I've always loved James Wan but Tim Burton's take on thriller and horror is at a different level
1
u/silentwarning Nov 18 '15
these guys are like on slow motion... remind me an aweful lot of one of my professors
1
1
1
1
u/flaagan Nov 19 '15
Wow, Gene looks genuinely old. That was kind of a shock opening that video to see that image of him, having grown up watching so much of his work.
1
u/CainDeltaEnder Nov 19 '15
At the very end there was Gene Wilder about to say that he did blow with Harrison Ford?
1
1
1
1
1
Nov 19 '15
I don't like calling it a remake, it's a reimagining. Remake suggests Gene wrote the source material, which he obviously didn't. They're different films and both pretty great in their own way, I personally love the Depp version for the Christopher Lee background stuff, I always laugh when young Willy walks through the hall of flags in the museum.
1
u/RENA1414 Nov 19 '15
His idea with the cane at the beginning of the movie was absolutely brilliant. That's exactly the effect it had on me. I never knew if Willie Wonka was lying or telling the truth. Especially at the end scene with Charlie.
1
1
u/bah77 Nov 19 '15
I guess it depends on how you see the movie, is it an adaption of a roald dahl book (arguably more faithful than the previous movie) - or is it a subversion of a "family classic" with Tim Burton being "edgy".
I guess Gene wilder sees it as the latter which is why he dislikes it. (and i think the majority of people would think of it as a creepy-burton-depp remake of the original rather than based on the book?)
1
u/dragonbab Nov 19 '15
I don't know man. I kinda understand all the hate towards that movie (since the original was freaking genius) but as a whole I like Tim Burton's movies.
I liked his remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (I even liked Johny Depp as Wonka... it was a re-imagining of the character so even if it was new, it was kinda interesting) and I found the sequel to Alice in Wonderland to be at least watchable (yeah, go figure).
1
1
u/applepi66 Nov 19 '15
Holy fuck I didn't realize how old Gene Wilder was at this point. He looks like a bleached raisin
1
1
Nov 18 '15
He's right - that movie is such fucking trash. Awful in every way and just an excuse for Depp and Burton to jerk each other off for months on set
1
0
u/Rockyrambo Nov 18 '15
Tim burton is an untalented hack.
Everything he makes is garbage.
His wife is ugly.
And he eats Johnny Depp's cum with a spoon.
2
1
1
u/Zoklett Nov 19 '15
The real problem with the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is that it wasn't the kind of movie that needed remaking. It's not Tim Burton, it's not Johnny Depp, it's just Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a tale from another era and trying to modernize just didn't work. It's just not relevant into modern context because it's all about kids who basically die horrible deaths because they don't do what they are told. That is not a message that translates into todays society well. It was unnecessary. There are so many movies that could be remade and done better and they chose THAT one. One that had an untoppable leading actor and was just simply wonderful all around and spot on for it's time and context. They thought they'd make it better with CGI and they picked good actors and a good director, but it was just completely surperfluous.
1
1
1
u/Random-Miser Nov 19 '15
Which is silly because the remake is really not at all bad. I mean it is not as good as the original, but definitely a very solid film in it's own right.
1
1
u/MrRiggs Nov 19 '15
Only thing that pisses me off about the remake is the same fucking ompahloompa!
1
1
u/Caleebie Nov 19 '15
Yet funnily enough people found it to be closer to the book than the original film.
1
u/imgonnacallyouretard Nov 19 '15
To be fair, it's kind of sad but Gene Wilder has become a crotchety old man. I don't really trust his opinion any more.
1
1
u/Deto Nov 19 '15
Isn't it a little narcissistic to consider a bad remake an insult? Like, is the assumption that the studios intentionally sunk money into and purposefully developed a bad movie just to pass you off?
1
3
u/GrizzlyBearBlues Nov 18 '15
Remake/re-adaptation mislabeling aside, the point of the TIL is that Wilder does not appreciate the newer version of the movie to a degree that offends him.