One of the greatest cult classics of all time, "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was on T.V. last night, and I decided to look up the actors and stuff on imdb. After clicking through some links, I found this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367594/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367594/)
I hadn't heard about this before, but I think it'll be awesome to see a remake of this movie. Check out who's directing it, and who'll be playing the starring role of Willy Wonka. It'll be awesome to see this.
I don't think there should be a remake. Producers and directors have tempered with classics too much. I think that this movie in particular should be kept the way it is...
I see a CGI Oompa-loompa. :-\ It's closer than you think... :o
Although Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka is a great casting descision.
It's said to star Johnny Depp. That ought to be interesting.
I think this will go the way of the remakes of "Planet of the Apes" or "Lost in Space." They won't replace the classics, and people will certainly enjoy watching the originals just as much. I have a feeling they'll add their own unique twist to the story. If they weren't going to add a twist, I would agree: the movie would be best left untouched. However, there's no stopping creativity, and Johnny Depp has been spectacular in all of his roles as of late.
On the other hand, I didn't think about the possibility of special effects. CG-based Oompa-Loompas is a disturbing thought. However, if it is done this way, I'm satisfied Tim Burton can pull it off.
What was wrong on the old Willy Wonka movie? I thought it was one of the best movies ever.... well atleast when I was about 12 years old. This movie had so much cool effects, and funny factory stuff... and great sing-along-songs, that it's pretty hard to make a better musical-movie of it. Because it was something like a musical...
Actually... I always wanted to see a movie of the sequel to the chocolate fatory...you know, the book about the elevator... that they get to space or something, with their whole family!
Looks interesting. I'm sure it will be done tastefully. I don't think Tim Burton would go out of control with CGI or make the Oompah Loompah's fly through the air with lightsabers for no apparent reason.. At least not until he becomes senile.
Anyway, I'd be interested to see how Tim Burton interprets a Roald Dahl story. Those two eccentric styles at work together could churn out one evil baby..
IT'S NOT A REMAKE GODDAMNIT!!!1!111!1
Everyone thinks that it's a remake, but the source for the script is teh book!11! The movie took alot of liberties with the book, ergo it's much different. So this movie could (and probably will) take a totally different approach. It'll most likely be more dark and captivaiting. (God I hope Danny Elfman doesn't do the same music he always does with Burton films)
Anyways, It's NOT a remake.. So quit yer complainin'
Okay, I *just* read this post, and all I have to say is...
Woohoo!!!
Oh yeah!!!
Actually, I think the original movie seriously warped my brain. I don't think I'll be in any hurry to see the remake. :P
Just the fact that Tim Burton directs it makes me want to see it. And since teh sexeh Johnny Depp is in it makes me want to see it even more. Since it isnt a musical I dont think it will turn out as good. But we'll just have to see. Personaly, I would rather see Ender's Game.
I heard about this some time ago ... back when Pirates came out somebody asked JD what was on his plate in the future and he hinted at working with TB again on a remake of something. After some digging I found out.
I'm glad to see it's a little more 'official' now!
When I was a kid I remember thinking how warped and twisted that movie was. It seemed so ... Satanic and evil just barely hidden under a bubble gum wrapper.
There is no better director living and/or dead who can capture that feeling better than Tim Burton.
Mark my words, this movie (if it happens) will be incredible.
~ d
/me marks Darth's words
Dawn of the Dead is being remade too.
Yeah, it's a readaptation of the book. There' probably won't be any orange Oompa Loompas, as they were just dark-skinned pygmies in the original book.
Personally, I am looking forward to this, even though I like the Gene Wilder movie.
When declaring all the alterations the first adaptation made from the origianl book, I think it should be noted that the screenplay of the 1971 version was written by Dahl himself [though of course writing for what was then a different market].
I'm sure it'll be in Britain again, since Hollywood thinks Brits are trendy right now, even Batman is getting in on the fad.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Tue 09/03/2004 03:13:06I'm sure it'll be in Britain again, since Hollywood thinks Brits are trendy right now, even Batman is getting in on the fad.
Wonka should be done in Britain, but that whole Batman thing completely escapes me...
He's going to be British in the next Batman film.
No kidding.
Man, I remember the first time I saw this movie...
I even dreamed I went to the Chocolate Factory! ::)
Can't wait to see how all this thing will turn out!
-Felipe-
I heard that Richard James (Aphex Twin) will be doing the soundtrack. Which would be ace-tastic.
Partial cast list:
Augustus Gloop - LGM
Veruca Salt - Annie
RE: Whoa! Harsh, dude! ;D
Anyway, I'm wondering if Tim Burton's had too many Happy Meals lately -- It seems like he's doing more happy, family-oriented stuff, like Big Fish and Willy Wonka.
He seems to be moving away from his Batman/Edward Scissorhands/Sleepy Hollow style.
And yes, Johnny Depp as Wonka should be interesting, but Gene Wilder rocks my boat.
Plus, they'll lose the musical numbers, I'm guessing -- That's one of the things I loved about the original.
By the way, did you notice in the original that Grandpa Joe was bed-ridden one minute, but as soon as Charlie pulls out the Golden Ticket, Joe can not only walk but sing and dance!
The lazy old fart should have gotten out of bed and gotten a job -- then they wouldn't be eating boiled cabbage for dinner every night.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Tue 09/03/2004 03:13:06
I'm sure it'll be in Britain again, since Hollywood thinks Brits are trendy right now, even Batman is getting in on the fad.
Thanks to the recent tax changes, I'm not sure it will be in Britain. That's why Johnny Depp's current film has been in financial hot water.
I'd be fully behind this film wherever it was going to be filmed, except that the guy who is adapting it did Big Fish, which wasn't up to much, Titan A.E. and Go, which un-thrilled me to the extent of not watching them.
Tim Burton needs a
REALLY GOOD writer to look after plot, story and character. Then he can do what he does best. I'm not convinced that this writer fits the bill. We could be landed with another floundering Big Fish.
QuoteHe seems to be moving away from his Batman/Edward Scissorhands/Sleepy Hollow style.
Too true. I'm hoping this movie will have the super creepy (very dark) undertone that I picked up from the original. I really enjoy ALL TB's movies, however, I enjoy his darker movies much more.
If he can set a mood in Wonka like he did in Sleepy Hollow it'll be perfect. When I watched the original I just kept expecting at any moment that Wilder was about to sprout horns and wave a pitch fork about. I hope Tim Burton captures that ...
Or maybe I'm the only one who saw that in the original ...
~ d
I commend Burton for taking on this project.
No one should be frustrated at Burton for the existence of a second Willy Wonka-ish movie, remake or not.
There was actually a situation where Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston had the same idea to produce Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. So an adaptation of the book would have been made without Burton or not. Just be glad it IS Burton and not hollywood's pretty folk. Tim has some of the best production design, and I doubt it will be CGI laden to the point of disgust.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Tue 09/03/2004 04:39:26
He's going to be British in the next Batman film.
No kidding.
I know, I meant that decision totally escapes me. I really hope Chris Nolan knows what he's doing with Batman, because he's already got one strike against him in my book.
LOTR, Harry Potter!
British Accents are cool man!
Especially when they're going to be the RE [received Enunciation] that only old BBC announcers and thespians use]
and Ali, I did mean plot wise. Exchange rates are sorta putting the binds on the glut of foreign made productions.
Aha! But you all are not seeing the big picture.
Batman speaks with an english accent for a very good reason.
Batman is struck by his arch nemesis the "Linguister" and for the remaining 88 minutes of the film, tries to regain his normal american high class accent.
Batman cant have too much of a British accent. If he does then Alfred's accent loses value, and thats all the poor old man has anymore, a $20 tux and a british accent.
But it's Michael Caine playing Alfred -- He's so British he practically invented British people.
remixor: What did Chris Nolan do to deserve a strike?
Michael Caine!?! That guy has a semi-gay british accent, its not the same!
Even if he has a semi-gay accent, he's been laid more times than you and me combined.
And that's what I call REAL BRITISH POWER!!!
Also, I'm guessing you've never seen Get Carter or Mona Lisa?
Michael Cain rocks, no matter what. Gay, straight, or in an Austin Powers movie...doesn't matter.
He is a good actor, dont get me wrong. He just doesnt seem to be good enough for Alfred, thats all I'm saying.
A elderly, british gentlemen with plenty of tongue-in-cheek... no, that doesn't sound like Michael Caine at all!
Ah, actually Batman won't be British. He's being played by a British man (Christian Bale), but he won't be British.
QuoteBatman is becoming British after director Christopher Nolan has been given the go-ahead to reinvent the American character in new movie Batman: Intimidation. The Memento film-maker wants to freshen up the superhero, who has so far featured in four modern day features, and has decided to give Batman and his American playboy alter-ego Bruce Wayne a more 'James Bond' feel.
http://www.imdb.com/PeopleNews/2004/20040213
I can dig up a few more articles, but that's the easiest to come to hand.
That really bothers me (and it's what I meant when I said Nolan has one strike against him). I'm all for British superheroes, but it just seems wrong to me to changed the nationality of an already-established character. And in this particular case, I really don't think Batman should have anything to do with Bond. They're totally different (at least, they WERE totally different).
I believe that that's in reference to the fact that most of the cast and crew are British (Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson Cillian Murphy, Christopher Nolan). And since when can you take what major news sources say as FACT? Even Warner Brothers has been giving out bogus information.
But who knows, I could be wrong. Dead wrong.
Also, most of the filming locations are British too.
And the director.
And I think most of the crew are too.
Plus, this is IMDB news versus your opinion -- No offense, but at the moment IMDB seems to have more basis for fact.
Quote
I believe that that's in reference to the fact that most of the cast and crew are British (Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson Cillian Murphy, Christopher Nolan). And since when can you take what major news sources say as FACT? Even Warner Brothers has been giving out bogus information.
But who knows, I could be wrong. Dead wrong.
This is usually not something that bothers me enough to say anything, but it's been done so much at this stage I thought I'd mention it.
The Republic of Ireland is not part of Britain. Britain does not own it, nor are the citizens of British Nationality. Therefore, somebody who comes from the Republic of Ireland is Irish. Ireland and England are two separate countries.
Probably you made a mistake, or perhaps mentioned his name offhandedly. I'm just saying it because it's always good to know things like this. It's irritating for your country and nationality to constantly be referred to as British (or anything else for that matter) when it's not. I'm sure the Canadians and Estonian people get the same sort of thing.
And back to the thread: I also disagree with changing the nationality of Batman. Was he perhaps british in the comics? I never read them. But I always thought he was supposed to be one of those patriotic american superheroes.... Hmmm...
And Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka?! Noooo!
In a strict way, Ireland IS part of Britain.
"Britain" classically refers to all the islands on that side of the channel.
As for being of British nationality, the Irish, being celts, are infinitely more British than the English.
The issue got confused because of the practice of calling The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [later just Northern Ireland] "Britain" by itself. After all, in the 19th and 20th century it was all of Britain, even though in it's title it only refered to Great Britain, which is to say the largest island, with England/Scotland/Wales. It's roughly similar to the whole USA/America/Estados Unidense debate which you wouldn't have read.
So the term "Britain" gets confused with the government of westminster, and the title become shunned by Irish republicans.
In all truth, were you truly a patriotic lass of Eire, you would decry the fashion in which lowly anglo saxon dogs have taken the title of the land of the celts.
So you're saying technically the Irish, Scottish, and Welsh are all "British", just not "English"?
Quote from: Indiana Psychonaut on Wed 10/03/2004 19:49:44And back to the thread: I also disagree with changing the nationality of Batman. Was he perhaps british in the comics? I never read them. But I always thought he was supposed to be one of those patriotic american superheroes.... Hmmm...
I'm not an enormous follower of Batman comics, but I sure as hell know he wasn't British, nor was he particularly patriotic. He's sort of the antithesis to the classic American superhero (ie, Superman), which is part of the appeal of the character to me.
Quote from: Las Naranjas on Wed 10/03/2004 21:04:48
In a strict way, Ireland IS part of Britain.
"Britain" classically refers to all the islands on that side of the channel.
As for being of British nationality, the Irish, being celts, are infinitely more British than the English.
The issue got confused because of the practice of calling The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [later just Northern Ireland] "Britain" by itself. After all, in the 19th and 20th century it was all of Britain, even though in it's title it only refered to Great Britain, which is to say the largest island, with England/Scotland/Wales. It's roughly similar to the whole USA/America/Estados Unidense debate which you wouldn't have read.
So the term "Britain" gets confused with the government of westminster, and the title become shunned by Irish republicans.
In all truth, were you truly a patriotic lass of Eire, you would decry the fashion in which lowly anglo saxon dogs have taken the title of the land of the celts.
I'm not patriotic.
Just like the meaning of the word 'gay', things change. I'm sure very few people would, without a lot of prior consideration, call someone gay in exchange for the word 'happy'. Similarly, very few people would call the Irish 'British' with the intent of meaning it in classic terms. Quite frankly, anybody who's mind is stuck in classic times for the present day world is an idiot.
The fact is, people are not referring to Ireland as part of Britain out of respect for the true identity of Britain. It's merely because they don't know any better. I was mentioning it so people had no excuse to
not know better, so next time I could point fingers at them and laugh at them and call them stupid.
Ireland is geographically part of the British Isles. It is not British
except by classical terms.
You can confuse matters more by calling Ireland British because of the way things were hundreds of years ago, if you want. But then I'll just further complicate things by calling you extremely gay.
Meow!
Thems fightin' words!
I know very well that Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson are Irish. I was just referring to Britain as a whole (England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales). And about the Batman being British, here's a quote from Variety:
QuoteFans fearing that the new Batman has taken his passport and moved across the pond shouldn't fret, however. Nolan may be a fan of Bond, and the new installment may be made up of a mostly British cast, crew and locations, but Batman's remaining American.
So there.
Liam Neeson is from Northern Ireland. I didn't mention him because he it is debatable (?) that he is English.
Just in case anybody thought I didn't recognise the awesome Liam Neeson.
Good God, I hope so.
EDIT: er, when I posted this message, Yufster hadn't replied yet. I was referring to Moneurto's post, although I guess it's nice that Liam Neeson is from Northern Ireland.
Speaking of Batman ... did you guys know they're remaking Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory? And Johnny Depp is going to star!!
Sorry ...
Just couldn't resist ;)
~ d
I posted it prematurely.
Should I wash my hair daily? While it does remain smelling sweetly of coconut and vanilla, perhaps it dries my hair also?
Not to be an annoying little shit (too late) but it's actually called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory since that's what the original book was called.
Sorry everyone, I'll shut up now....
Quote from: Moneurto the Vampyre on Thu 11/03/2004 06:13:57
I know very well that Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson are Irish. I was just referring to Britain as a whole (England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales). And about the Batman being British, here's a quote from Variety:
QuoteFans fearing that the new Batman has taken his passport and moved across the pond shouldn't fret, however. Nolan may be a fan of Bond, and the new installment may be made up of a mostly British cast, crew and locations, but Batman's remaining American.
So there.
Variety is full of lies.
And they're owned by communists.
I just saw this tonight. Very weird, I must say. The style of the movie was very much so different then the first. There was a larger focus on the characters and their development rather then just on the candy, which resulted from a big change from the origional.
Johnny Deep's character was great. He was less intellegent and more silly. My girlfriend and her friends all though he was still hot though.
This move was very Burton. The music reflected all of his work. At one point I swore they used the same song as one from NBC. Speaking of which, the preview for Corpse Bride looked very good.
All in all, a very good show. I found myself with anxiety because they don't go to the factory until late in the movie. I just wanted it to get there and over with. The origional was the same way, but I actually felt bored.
Sounds good to me. I saw the trailer for it, and Johnny looks very female. I don't know if that translates over to the movie too, but it creeped me out a little.
Oh and I am looking forward to seeing this. I did like the book and the other movie, so it will be nice to compare them.
I loved the new version of the movie. In my opinion, is much more like the book, and captured the style of the book much better. Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka was just too grand, he knew how to deal with children. Yet in the book, and in Tim Burton/Johnny Depp's interpretation of the role, Willy Wonka is very much a hermit.
Maybe you all were just talking about the actors, but the original film was shot in Bavaria, Germany. Although it was SUPPOSED to be in America, at least according to the script...which was funny because it was really obvious that it was in Germany---at least for someone from there or who has lived there.
Anyway, maybe you guys were talking about something completely different.
Last I checked, America doesn't use big shiney gold coins as a everyday currency..
But yes, it's obvious that it's not shot where it was suppposed to be.
I was born in Germany. But we moved shortly after, so I can't say that I remember much of anything of it. But I didn't notice! LOL! But I did love the original version. And I want to see the Johnny Depp Version...
No, that's the whole thing. They say that it's in Pittsburgh or some pennsylvania town if I remember correctly, but every other aspect of the movie points to it being in Europe.
I saw the film today.
Typical steaming pile of Tim Burton shit. Steaming, over-indulgent shit.
Johnny Depp, however, played his role well.
Kids - great.
Hamfisted artistic senitment and morality - farkin' shit.
Bt
I don't think I've ever seen a Burton film with shit in it.
You must be thinking of Cliff Burton (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1330178/)
Easy mistake. (Though he is rather dead)
Quote from: [lgm] on Mon 18/07/2005 04:39:25
I don't think I've ever seen a Burton film with shit in it.
You must be thinking of Cliff Burton (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1330178/)
Easy mistake. (Though he is rather dead)
I find Tim Burton cliched and pretentious. But some people like him. I really thouht
Charlie and The Chocolate Factory was his typical steaming pile of shit offering.
Interestingly enough, I liked his version of Planet Of The Apes in moments. Probably because it wasn't much like his other films.
HOWEVER, I have not seen
Big Fish, though through the magic of gifting, I own it. Many people I know claim that to be a good film. I want to give it a view.
And why the senseless reference to Cliff Burton? When he was in the band, Metallica produced a lot of fine music. Tut tut.
Bt
I just picked the first Burton name I found :-p
I don't really notice the cliche's you speak of, but sure he can be pretentious... But so can any director... Krubrick, Speilberg, etc.
Hopefully I'll get around to seeing this today.. I trust Burton and Depp enough to assume that I will get an entertaining movie.
Blackthorne, I think you ought to be much more specific, rather than throwing around the occasional 'cliche' and 'steaming pile of shit'. I'd much rather you gave us some useful opinions. Otherwise, none of us are benefiting from this discussion, and perhaps only angers are provoked.
We were going to see this movie this weekend, but ended up river rafting instead. I'm anxious to see it, as I've heard numerous times that it's much closer to the book. As a kid, I read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator more times than I can count. I was a huge fan of Roald Dahl growing up. His stuff is so deliciously twisted. While I love the original movie, it always irritated me how different it was from the book. The movie was much more whimsical then the book was. Not that I mind a little whimsy once in a while! I'm looking forward to seeing a darker version of the story. And I am fans of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp... SO I'm thinking I'll probably enjoy it.
Incidently, Blackthorne... my boyfriend and I both absolutely loved Big Fish. While it has it's cliche moments, it's the weidest, funniest adventure I've ever seen. Even my dad liked it, and he doesn't like anything.
Saw the movie a couple days ago, and enjoyed it. You can't really compare the two Willy Wonka's from either movie as they are completely different roles. Johnny Depp couldn't have portrayed it as well as Gene Wilder, and Gene Wilder couldn't have portrayed Willy how Depp portrayed them.
The kids were well casted, and it had some great funny moments. Whether either one is better than the other is merely up to the individual. Personally, I like the older one better, but Gene Wilder is one of my favorite comic actors and I love musicals. Also I've grown up with the movie, so my view point will naturally be slanted.
I do have to say, the most exciting thing, though, was the preview for Tim Burtons next movie Corpse Bride. I loved the Nightmare Before Christmas, and the game Neverhood made me appreciate claymation. I also am glad to see Danny Elfman is doing the music for Corpse Bride, too. He did a great job with Nightmare.
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Mon 18/07/2005 20:47:10
Saw the movie a couple days ago, and enjoyed it. You can't really compare the two Willy Wonka's from either movie as they are completely different roles. Johnny Depp couldn't have portrayed it as well as Gene Wilder, and Gene Wilder couldn't have portrayed Willy how Depp portrayed them.
I think it's fine to compare both movies, but I don't think the newer was meant to completely replace the older movie. My friend said "I don't know... I still like the older movie.", well it's not l ike this movie is supposed to change your mind about it; it's not a competition or anything. It's kind of like... Batman vs. Batman Begins because they're both great movies but they're completely different in style.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to seeing this movie and I'll go see it once my friends are not sick/working/etc.
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Mon 18/07/2005 20:47:10
Saw the movie a couple days ago, and enjoyed it. You can't really compare the two Willy Wonka's from either movie as they are completely different roles. Johnny Depp couldn't have portrayed it as well as Gene Wilder, and Gene Wilder couldn't have portrayed Willy how Depp portrayed them.
The kids were well casted, and it had some great funny moments. Whether either one is better than the other is merely up to the individual. Personally, I like the older one better, but Gene Wilder is one of my favorite comic actors and I love musicals. Also I've grown up with the movie, so my view point will naturally be slanted.
I do have to say, the most exciting thing, though, was the preview for Tim Burtons next movie Corpse Bride. I loved the Nightmare Before Christmas, and the game Neverhood made me appreciate claymation. I also am glad to see Danny Elfman is doing the music for Corpse Bride, too. He did a great job with Nightmare.
-MillsJROSS
I haven't seen the movie, but this makes me want to even more than I already did. I too have seen the Wilder Wonka several hundred times throughout my childhood, and interestingly enough it is one of the few musicals I liked.
Also Corpse Bride looks excellent IMO. I thought that NBC had a few too many songs, but other than that it looked good. I saw the world premiere trailer for CB on Adult Swim though, and it looks amazing. Tim Burton has an insane amount of talent with stop animation.
I saw this movie. Very good. I saw the trailer for a movie called Barnyard by Steve Oedekerk. I 'm going to go see that next year. Corpse Bride trailer also looks very good.
Ah, well, sorry to drudge up an old thread, but I FINALLY got see the new movie. I thought it was great! I thought Johnny Depp was hilairious, of course, I don't think I've ever seen Johnny Depp put on a bad performance. I liked the fact that the story was much closer to the book. I love that kid who plays Charlie. He's a great little actor. I thought the original Veruca was better. but, as someone else said, you really can't compare the two movies. They went in two totally different directions. After watching the new, we went home and watched the old one. I love both of them for different reasons.
All and all, it was a pretty good theater-going experience. We saw it at the Egyptian Theater in Boise, which is this old, restored theater with sphinxes and egyptian paintings and stuff... it's really cool. Seeing a whimsical movie like that at that particular theater was fun. And I had my "yay" moment when I saw the Goblet of Fire trailer. ;D
Johnny Depp has never given a bad performance. Hmm... His Elm Street performance. I cant remember much of it, but from what I can remember it was ok. But then again he was younger and less experienced. Anyone know much about this?
Me and Amy went to see it. I was surprised at how good it was, i really liked it and Johnny Depp did a great job, he didnt looks as pretty as he does in POTC though.
Quote from: [Cameron] on Wed 17/08/2005 12:01:33
Johnny Depp has never given a bad performance. Hmm... His Elm Street performance. I cant remember much of it, but from what I can remember it was ok. But then again he was younger and less experienced. Anyone know much about this?
I know that it was either his first role, or that he was enough of an unknown at the time for it to be as if it was. The role itself wasn't too bad.
I loved the film, definitely a return to form for Timmy B. By far my favourite line was "That's the puppet burns ward... it's relatively new."
Film Trivia: Depp wasn't credited for his Elm Street performance.
Hmm still havn't seen this movie. I think I missed out in it at the cinema which is annoying, but I'm sure I'll get it out on DVD.
It's still posted as coming soon, but I'm not surprised you thought you missed it considering films seem to run for two weeks and then get to DVD as soon as possible.
Actually, I never said "Johnny Depp has never put on a bad performance" What I said was, "I don't think I've ever seen Johnny Depp put on a bad performance" There is a big difference there. I have actually never seen Elm Street, so it doesn't apply to what I said.
Finally saw this today. It's funny, after all the pre-release moaning about Burton 'pointlessly messing with a classic', this one certainly turned out about ten times more enjoyable then this years piece of shit Batman remake!
This and the 70's film should really switch titles, because this was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory all the way, with Charlie's story trailing in third. I think the first film cut to the heart of the story better, and in a more emotionally involving way, but this one did a much better job of fleshing out Dahl's world and just making a fun, funny visual ride out of the whole story. Depp was pretty hilarious the whole time, and Elfman's songs were (again) fun, even if the lyrics were too hard to make out. Nothing beats the original Umpa-Loompa song, though.
And man, that Corpse Bride looks good. If Burton can nail that one, i'll finally forgive him for that whole Planet Of The Apes thing.
If I recall correctly, and I could be way wrong about this, but I think most, if not all of the lyrics to the oompa loompa songs were taken directly out of the book.
What I think is really funny is how people say he was messing with a classic. The same thing could be said about the first movie. It was based on the book, but deviated pretty far from it. The new movie was much closer to it. Don't get me wrong, I love both films though.