Whats the better movie?
I feel the original has more heart, but Charlie is basically identical to the book apart from the pointless backstory sideplot.
>>64424264
tim burton had one or two good movies and then he decided to ruin johnny depp's career. OP pic related.
in retrospect, basing New Wee Willy Wonka after Michael Jackson may have been a bad choice.
>watching kids movies
>>64424264
I like Gene Wilder a lot more as Wonka but honestly prefer the Burton version. Pity it wastes time with an unnecessary 20 minute sequence on the end. Neither anywhere near as good as the book but I'm biased because it was my favourite book as a kid.
>TFW this movie freaked the fuck out of me as a kid so much it gave me nightmares and I haven't seen it for decades since.
Even seeing screenshots of this movie makes me queasy. What the fuck is wrong with Ronald Dahl.
>>64424441
>What the fuck is wrong with Ronald Dahl.
its pretty well documented in his biographies that he was a sadomasochist.
>>64424441
>What the fuck is wrong with Ronald Dahl.
Absolutely nothing mate. He was based as fuck.
>>64424441
>ronald
The 1970s one of course.
More heart, and at least the musical parts are fun
The Wilder version is way above the Depp version, although the Depp version is still interesting in it's own right. It just lacks the subtlety that made Wilder such an effective Wonka, and relied too heavily on visually representing 'imagination' rather than letting it build in the mind of the viewer.
Burton's version is technically more faithful to the book, but oddly enough the original movie is a lot closer to the book in tone and spirit.
Wilder Wonka >>>>>>> Depp Wonka
>>64424264
I am the only person who likes the new one more.
im ok with that.
>>64424441
>saw blazing saddles as a kid before I saw Charlie and the Chocolate factory
>could never take Wilder serious as Wonka
>>64424264
The music alone should put Burton's Wonka in its own shit tier of movie adaptations. The most annoying fucking thing I've heard and seen, the POO oompa loompas were about the shittest thing about the movie.
>>64426582
What the fuck
>>64424264
New one is closer to the original story I guess, but Wonka's backstory was really unecessary. Also it looked too dark and creepy, even when it was trying to be whimsical. The tunnel ride and slugworth in the original are creepy but they work because they stand out from the rest of the film.
>>64424792
I hear ya chief
70's is infinitely better, unless your a fucking idiot i cant see how you would find the depp version superior, it has no fucking soul.
>>64424328
>implying you don't watch it every christmas
fuck you
>>64426582
>adult woman
>no tits
how does this happen?
>>64424792
Agreed
When I first read the book I didn't picture it at all like the original movie and always disliked it for that reason. Not exactly objective opinion.
>>64424441
Dahl hated the movie for giving it a happy ending. The book ended with the boy accepting that he was only going to live for a few more years as a mouse, and resolving to do as much as he could in that time. It also had the implication that the fat kid was killed by his parents.
He hated the 'happy' ending so much that he stood outside his local cinema with a megaphone telling people not to see it.
>>64424264
I preferred the Burton version ever since it came out. I never liked Gene Wilder's Wonka for some reason, whereas Depp's characterisation of Wonka felt just like how it is in the book.
plus the Burton version has Christopher Lee cameo
>>64425401
This.
While I'm all for telling the story with visuals rather than dialogue, the 1970s one is better because it makes the viewer think
>>64424441
its directed by based nicolas roeg.
>>64424502
Roald Dahl. He was also an anti-semite and pretty much browbeat his wife to get over that stroke.