FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I haven't seen the new one yet ... but it's got Johnny Depp so there's no contest.

jonny in the new one is very simular to MJ. tahts why i hate the new one.

I haven't decided yet. I think I like the new one better though. It was more interesting, and more accurate to the book. I like Tim Burton's dark creepy "crooked house" type theme that he puts into movies.

On a side note, I'm with Janna in that I liked the old Oompah Loompah guys better.

I wonder whatever happend to that bubble scene?


-Ferret

-Formerly known as the Ferretfish

That is officially the coolest name ever, though I did not particularly like the oompa loompas this time around, either.

All of the Oompa-Loompas in the new one are played by [link=Deep Roy]http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0746989/" style="COLOR: #FFFFFF[/link].

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

If they are size changing migets, then how do they look exactly the same?

I didn't mean the lyrics aren't good. The tunes themselves are boring and not nearly as catchy. Yeah, I like the painted midgets much better than these size-changing Oompah-Loompahs that all look exactly the same.

---

They shade the glow of it with their mossy-misty costumes,
They wear masks of silk, porcelain, brass, and silver,
So as not to mislead with their own, ordinary faces.

The new one looks better but I havnt seen it yet

The old one really didn't stick to the book which is why I like the new one better (yet I havn't seen it)

The Oompa-Loompas in the first movie were just a bunch of stupid painted midgets

I like stupid painted midgets

Their songs weren't nearly as good as the originals'

Um... These are the original songs. Nearly all of the lyrics in Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were taken directly from the book.

The Oompa-Loompas in the first movie were just a bunch of stupid painted midgets.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Dahl hated the original production and destested his own book. While the first movie was intended to be a write off of the book itself, this movie was specifically portrayed to express the initial intentions of Dahl when he wrote the book, hence the title Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, not WWand the CF.

Old one, definitely. As much as I love Johnny Depp, Gene Wilder did a better job as Willy Wonka. Depp didn't get the right feeling across. Gene Wilder had some of that eccentricity, but also gave a feeling of warmth at the right moments. Johnny Depp's portrayal was just disturbing.

I HATED the Oompah- Loompahs in the new one. All of them being the same person and such was just stupid. Their songs weren't nearly as good as the originals', and they kept changing sizes! In most of the scenes that showed an Oompah- Loompah next to a human, they were WAY too small.

The whole movie was a little too dark. The factory, the weather, everything. Gene Wilder really made a classic with the first movie. These two really just don't compare.

---

They shade the glow of it with their mossy-misty costumes,
They wear masks of silk, porcelain, brass, and silver,
So as not to mislead with their own, ordinary faces.

Which version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" do you like better?

I like the new version a lot better, because it is so much more similar to the book than the old one (plus, I'm a huge Tim Burton fan). I grew up watching the old one and loved it, but I became slightly disappointed in it once I actually read the book in fourth grade. The old one changed things that didn't need to be changed, like the squirrels being replaced by geese.

Also, the old one missed a lot of the points that Roald Dahl was trying to make in the book, one for example being that television doesn't make you dumb, it just destroys your imagination. In the first movie, the Mike Teavee kid was dumb and annoying, and had an imagination (if I remember correctly he was wearing a cowboy outfit in the beginning). The new Mike Teavee, however, was exactly the point that the author was trying to make. He was extremely smart, but had absolutely no imagination and was not very childlike ["Why is everything in this factory completely pointless?!"].

I'm sick of people saying they hate the new one just because the old one is, well, older. I have a feeling the people who say things like that have never read the book and never seen the new one.



Last edited by Cory Addict at 04-Aug-2005 17:10

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

I must agree, the music in the old one was....shall we say sad. Especially "Cheer up Charlie". Also I never could stand that stupid kid who played him.

"Constant vigilance!"
Mad-Eye Moody

Since you say the new one is a disgrace, have you seen the new one or read the book?

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

old, the new one is a desgrace

"I can't stand the music"

I have to agree with that.

The new one's hilarious; I laughed so hard people in front of me turned around and stared (little kids; I don't think they were getting the joke).

The old one's fine, but frankly feels long, I can't stand the music, and Gene Wilder's just not my cup of tea.

The book's top-notch, of course. And Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator is fantastic.

-Molly
Visit shelldwellers.com!

I do like the old one for being much more cinematic (the flow of the story in Burton's version was sort of prolonged to the point of annoyance), but you just can't beat the graphics and the sheer hilarity of the recent version. Fat German kid for the win.

Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 05-Aug-2005 09:17

I have bad memories from the old one.

That sounds interesting. Please continue.

**Imagines little kid running out of the room screaming during the tunnel scene**

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

I like the new one better, both because it is more true to the book and because I have bad memories from the old one.

><>