Which film adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory do you prefer?

[Christian T]

Hi guys,

I've always loved Roald Dahl and Tim Burton, and have always adored the fruit of their combined ingenuity in the most recent adaptation.

However, I find David L. Wolper's earlier version to be really saccharine, cheesy and dated.

I thought I'd throw the question out to my fellow aspies, as most of my neurotypical friend just dismiss Burton as too weird.

What does everyone on here think, I'm curious to know?

 

[Gomendosi]

The first one to be sure, it had it all and it has stood the test of time, plus all the Oompa Loompas were different and unique like they should be!
It was kinda scary, a little bit sad, crazy hectic and hard to follow at points (for a young mind) and true to the book if I remember rightly.
Add into that, that anything with Gene Wilder is hilarious and that it was a musical... there we go, nuff said. At least In my opinion anyway ; ]

 

[Christian T]

Just to elaborate, I preferred Tim Burton's because it fully embraced the delightful source material, and went further with it. It didn't fight against it. It was just as idiosyncratic, colorful and appropriately childish. Plus, they used Roald Dahl's original rhymes, which I much preferred and which they sued to create some excellently choreographed and designed sequences with a very versatile Deep Roy. I thought the fact that he played all of them added to the effect of them being otherworldly creatures.

I could go on forever, but I'll just add that I thought Burton's was more of a visual spectacle, it included that priceless scene where the Great Glass Elevator crashes into the Buckett household and, as witty as Gene Wilder is, he can never lose himself in his characters as much as Johnny Depp - my favourite actor - can, and didn't bring nearly as many facets to the character of Willy Wonka.

But, as Gomendosi very maturely pointed out, this is just my opinion.

Does anyone agree with me?

 

[kasmanaft08]

The tim burton one annoyed me a bit to be honest.

I love the sort of snarky, dark humor gene wilder put into Willy Wonka. Hard to beat, IMO.

 

[King_Oni]

I've seen the Burton version before the one Mel Stuart directed. So that might be a bit of bias.

Also; since Stuart's is from the 70's it looks dated. Burtons might look dated in 30 years as well, but in 30 years, Stuarts still has almost 40 years of more age to Burtons.

I might also be biased a bit since I like most Burton movies... none come to mind which I don't like actually. I like his visual style a lot. And I also feel that Depp does a good job on any Burton movies... it's roles that just feel like a perfect fit for him.

I never read the book, so I can't really compare which movie is most "true" to the original story though.

A small thing to add; I enjoyed the soundtrack of the Burton adaption way more than the Stuart version.

 

[Christian T]

I've seen the Burton version before the one Mel Stuart directed. So that might be a bit of bias.

Also; since Stuart's is from the 70's it looks dated. Burtons might look dated in 30 years as well, but in 30 years, Stuarts still has almost 40 years of more age to Burtons.

I might also be biased a bit since I like most Burton movies... none come to mind which I don't like actually. I like his visual style a lot. And I also feel that Depp does a good job on any Burton movies... it's roles that just feel like a perfect fit for him.

I never read the book, so I can't really compare which movie is most "true" to the original story though.

A small thing to add; I enjoyed the soundtrack of the Burton adaption way more than the Stuart version.

Always a pleasure to meet another Tim Burton and/or Johnny Depp fan. I love Burton's visual style too, and also his richly quirky storytelling. Many praise Depp for his straighter roles like Gilbert Grape or Donnie Brasco, but I much prefer his more inventive characterisations, like Jack Sparrow, because they set him apart from all of the other "quality" actors.

And, I should clarify, I didn't mean dated in a visual sense, but more in terms of the humour. I don't find it particularly enduring or considered, and I think it has quite a low expiration date.

I'm certainly not biased against old films - I enjoy ones any era - but, to me, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory seems to have been made exclusively for 70s audience.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "dated". I think it's pretty silly anyway - is it such a big deal if you can tell when a film was made? - but I thought it was an effective way to get my point across. Obviously not though.

Lastly, I also loved Danny Elfman's zany soundtrack, as I do for all of Burton's films. The only Burton film I dislike is Beetlejuice.

 

[Kelly]

I like both films but for me Wolper's is best. I think Johnny Depp is an amazing actor not many can bring to life such a range of characters with such authenticity.

The main annoyance for me with the Burton one is the oompa loompas all being played by the same person, it's just not as realistic as having small people with varying faces/sizes play them. I think he could have made it work better by having some half ass explanation such as Wonka brought only 1 back with him and cloned it or something like that. Or they could have used special effects to slightly change his face/size, everytime I see it I think why would an entire race look exactly alike, not similar (small gene pool, interbreeding etc) but identical.

I also prefer the songs in the original with the wacky writing floating across the screen etc...oh apart from that song Charlie's mum sings, we ALWAYS skip that because it is so dreary and annoying.

My little girl saw the Burton one first loved it and then saw the other one and was blown away and she agrees it's much better then the Burton one so I don't think it's an age thing either (i.e growing up with Wolper's so prefering that).

 

[King_Oni]

Always a pleasure to meet another Tim Burton and/or Johnny Depp fan. I love Burton's visual style too, and also his richly quirky storytelling. Many praise Depp for his straighter roles like Gilbert Grape or Donnie Brasco, but I much prefer his more inventive characterisations, like Jack Sparrow, because they set him apart from all of the other "quality" actors.

And, I should clarify, I didn't mean dated in a visual sense, but more in terms of the humour. I don't find it particularly enduring or considered, and I think it has quite a low expiration date.

I'm certainly not biased against old films - I enjoy ones any era - but, to me, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory seems to have been made exclusively for 70s audience.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "dated". I think it's pretty silly anyway - is it such a big deal if you can tell when a film was made? - but I thought it was an effective way to get my point across. Obviously not though.

Lastly, I also loved Danny Elfman's zany soundtrack, as I do for all of Burton's films. The only Burton film I dislike is Beetlejuice.

Oh, I didn't use "dated" because you did... but I feel a lot of movies take away from the timelessness because they look like they're made in year X. In terms of humor, maybe... but nowadays all humor is edgy. Or at least, supposed to be. I do agree that it shouldn't matter when a movie is made. To me Star wars is still fine, even if it's been 35 years already. But I think that the more contemporary set movies look "old". Heck, I once dated a girl who didn't understand where I got my music from back when there was NO internet... and she was born in the early 90's... so people at some point will stop to relate to whatever they see in a movie. I know what a recordplayer is, or a walkman, and I know that in the 80's they had clunky cellphones. To others it looks like really bad props instead of actual items from back then... but obviously, something can be said about those people, lol.

But Beetlejuice has an awesome soundtrack. I don't know.. Beetlejuice... it's ok, maybe Michael Keaton was the problem there, not Burtons idea of a movie.

 

[Christian T]

The main annoyance for me with the Burton one is the oompa loompas all being played by the same person, it's just not as realistic as having small people with varying faces/sizes play them. I think he could have made it work better by having some half ass explanation such as Wonka brought only 1 back with him and cloned it or something like that. Or they could have used special effects to slightly change his face/size, everytime I see it I think why would an entire race look exactly alike, not similar (small gene pool, interbreeding etc) but identical.

I don't really think realism is the aim with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As I understand it, the oompa loompas were done that way because they're meant to be strikingly different from real world creatures, and I loved the wackiness of seeing Deep Roy put on so many different personas.

Although, it's of course up to you whether you find them believable or delightful, and good to hear that it's not just a case of nostalgia for those who prefer the older version. It's also good to hear that we agree on one thing: that intolerable "Come on, Charlie" song!

 

[Christian T]

Oh, I didn't use "dated" because you did... but I feel a lot of movies take away from the timelessness because they look like they're made in year X. In terms of humor, maybe... but nowadays all humor is edgy. Or at least, supposed to be. I do agree that it shouldn't matter when a movie is made. To me Star wars is still fine, even if it's been 35 years already. But I think that the more contemporary set movies look "old". Heck, I once dated a girl who didn't understand where I got my music from back when there was NO internet... and she was born in the early 90's... so people at some point will stop to relate to whatever they see in a movie. I know what a recordplayer is, or a walkman, and I know that in the 80's they had clunky cellphones. To others it looks like really bad props instead of actual items from back then... but obviously, something can be said about those people, lol.

But Beetlejuice has an awesome soundtrack. I don't know.. Beetlejuice... it's ok, maybe Michael Keaton was the problem there, not Burtons idea of a movie.

Glad to hear we agree regarding time periods, way my little sister really annoys me because she refuses to try out any films, books, songs are TV shows that are older than her - unfortunately that practically restricts her to only this century, so she's missing out on a lot.

I thought Beetlejuice was off to quite a creative start, but in the end the only thing praiseworthy about it was the claymation, which Burton always does well. Michael Keaton was intolerable in that film, and so Catherine O'Hara's ridiculously changeable character - how can the writers expect us to adore that nasty hag all of a sudden at the end there?

 

[Kelly]

I don't really think realism is the aim with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. As I understand it, the oompa loompas were done that way because they're meant to be strikingly different from real world creatures, and I loved the wackiness of seeing Deep Roy put on so many different personas.

Oh no I understand it's not meant to be real...I mean I've been to a chocolate factory, it had a chocolate waterfall but not as impressive lol. It's just a thing I have with films, I was watching the ninth gate this morning and when Depp places the book behind the mini bar in his room for safe keeping I was shouting at the TV "Oh FFS shut the curtains, you have people following you/trying to snatch the book why would you not shut the curtains!", other highlights include me saying "oh that's handy every key person in foreign countries just happens to be fluent in english...yeah cause that would happen". Right at the end when the satanists or whatever they call themselves are running away one woman lifts her robe off whilst fleeing,me.."uhm she's naked under that, why would you take the robe off? why was her first thought after seeing someone get killed 'must remove my robe and run naked outside'...someone wanted their butt on camera". The expensive books being left on the floor and the guy claiming he takes good care of them making sure they are kept damp & dust free/away from sunlight..."You have huge windows on every side, there is alot of sunlight pouring down directly onto the books, you are keeping them on cloth on a cold,old wooden floor the place is run down and empty therefore gets very cold, I'm guessing you cannot keep up with repairs from the broken glass on the front door/general shabbiness of everything and you probably don't keep it warm/dry enough to stop damp /mould so no, no you do not take good care of them!"

I just get really annoyed when films have little bits in them that I feel are obvious flaws, most people don't notice them/don't care but I love movies and these little things bug me alot.

 

[Christian T]

I just get really annoyed when films have little bits in them that I feel are obvious flaws, most people don't notice them/don't care but I love movies and these little things bug me alot.

I can be very critical as well, but I find it easier than most people to "suspend disbelief". I find it especially annoying when no one else cares about these flaws.

Oh, good grief, The Ninth Gate! Just a ridiculous film all over, in my opinion. Incredibly surprising, considering how much I like Roman Polanski, Johnny Depp and Frank Langella. Horribly disappointing, I must say.

 

[Kelly]

Oh, good grief, The Ninth Gate! Just a ridiculous film all over, in my opinion. Incredibly surprising, considering how much I like Roman Polanski, Johnny Depp and Frank Langella. Horribly disappointing, I must say.

It started off well but just became very predictable and annoying fast, probably why I was shouting about so much stuff (if I'm really enjoying a film I completely miss the flaws until I watch it a second or third time). We only bought it because we caught the first 15 or so minutes of it when we were at my mum's house got interested and decided not to watch it there (too many interruptions, we like to sit and watch a whole film and get totally absorbed in it) and buy it at a later date to watch with surround sound/quiet/no interruptions.

 

[Christian T]

We only bought it because we caught the first 15 or so minutes of it when we were at my mum's house got interested and decided not to watch it there (too many interruptions, we like to sit and watch a whole film and get totally absorbed in it) and buy it at a later date to watch with surround sound/quiet/no interruptions.

Oh, I'm exactly the same. I have to get the full experience, otherwise it's nowhere near as satisfying and I don't think I can really make a proper judgement of the film. It always annoys me when people like to walk in and out of any film at their leisure and expect the film to make sure they can still follow it. That only works with episodic Westerns - there are many other genres. My dad complained about the beautiful montage in Up because it made him lose his place when he went to get a drink, and that really got on my nerves.

You can't be that casual. Imagine if someone watching psycho with no prior knowledge - as Hitchcock had intended - chose to go to the toilet break as soon as the Janet Leigh character got into the shower?

Sorry if I'm rambling, but I'm very passionate about this.

Anyway, keep those Charlie and the Chocolate Factory opinions coming, I'm very eager to hear them!

 

[Mr Allen]

I preferred the original to be honest.

I have both on DVD though.

 

[AspiePie]

The originally.. The new thinks being tech nerd is bad...

 

[ancusmitis]

I like the one with Gene Wilder in it.

 

[Astroganga]

None. As a huge fan of the original books as a child, any adaptation would not do them justice.

 

[Mr Allen]

I suppose the Johnny Depp version is closer to the book, but I did prefer the original 1970s movie.

 

[StephF]

I don't know about the directors but I liked the Johnny Depp version