For the final time: "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is NOT a remake..

[LynneSin]

...of the 1971 "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory"

Both movies were based on the same book which the 2004 film is named after - "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". In IMDB trivia, it was mentioned that the writer of the 2005 movie never even seen the 1971 movie. He was just given the original book written by Roald Dahl and adapted his script from there.

I have no idea what to expect with "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" but I hope it's absolutely nothing like the "Willy Wonka" movie and more like the book that Roald Dahl had written.

Thanks for letting em rant!

[unblock]

1. i've heard it's supposed to be a faithful rendering of the book

including some scenes omitted from the 1971 movie, and singing limited to the oompa-loompas.

the movie had a special magic to it, though it was in many ways a very different work from the book.

the new movie should be interesting....

[supernova]

2. We've talked about this endlessly on the JD fan boards

Roald Dahl was apparently unhappy with his attempt at the screenplay back in 1971. I dont' think Gene Wilder had a thing to do with that.

So, when Burton wanted to do the movie, the Dahl family gave him their blessing to try again.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. Dumb Question

What's the pronunciation of Roald's name?

[supernova]

10. I've always said "Rolled"

Is that not correct?

How does anyone else pronouce it.

[LynneSin]

6. Yep, that's in the trivia for the 1971 version

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/trivia

Roald Dahl was reportedly so angry with the treatment of his book (mainly stemming from the massive rewrite by David Seltzer) that he refused permission for the book's sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, to be filmed. Seltzer had an idea for a new sequel, but legal issues meant that it never got off the ground.

[supernova]

11. Thanks for confirming LynneSin

:thumbsup:

[Jessica]

3. Thank you.

Thank you thank you thank you.

[grace0418]

4. I could not agree more

The 1971 movie was nowhere near as good as the book. I hope I'm not disappointed by this adaptation (at least it has the correct title), my hopes are high.

[LynneSin]

7. Even IMDB does not classify this as a remake but a 'version of'

Example: In 2003 the movie "The Italian Job" was a remake of a movie that was out in 1969

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317740/movieconnections


For "CHarlie and the Chocolate Factory" it's deemed a 'version of' which means the 2 movies are connected (they both came from the same book) but the newest one is not a remake

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367594/movieconnections

[DS1]

9. That's just Hollywood adopting the Bushian classification invention dodge.

If the glove fits, find a different hand.

It's a remake, the Italian Job was a remake. Saying it's a "version of" is just as bad as web site "designers" that blatantly rip off other sites with an "Inspired by:" tag.

Not buying it.

[LynneSin]

13. IT IS NOT A REMAKE - you're just trying to get me all pissy

Roald Dahl hated the 1971 version so much he wouldn't even let them do a sequal with "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator". The 1971 version was a musical which I do not believe that this new version is.

It is NOT A REMAKE

Don't get me pissy!

[DS1]

14. Excellent, I just left the lid up

:P

It's still a remake. Or isn't War of the Worlds a remake now either?

[LynneSin]

16. DS1 I love you but you can kiss my sorry white ass

[DS1]

17. That donkey is jealous of your ass's whiteness

:*

[LynneSin]

18. that's why he's so sorry

now just make it up to me and admit that I'm right

[DS1]

20. How about re-imagination?

Or did you already suggest that?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. But you're ADORABLE when you're being pissy

...so you've nobody to blame but yourself!

[Dave Reynolds]

24. Like the stinker "Planet of the Apes"

was a "re-imagining".

Okay then.

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. THANK YOU DARLING!!!!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[Abelman]

12. Another example

would be the ninja turtles. The cartoon and movies are based from the same source material, but are very different works.

I too hate people who think it's a remake. Most of them are obviously unaware that there was a book. And I love the Gene Wilder movie, but I prefer the book much more.

[redqueen]

19. Yes, you're exactly right.

I can't wait to see it. :D

[Ekirh]

21. If I remember...

On IMDB it also says Robert Dahl didn't like the 1971 version because of the musical numbers added.

Yes, it isn't a remake. I made that mistake also originally, but now that I know it's more of an more faithful adaptation than anything else, I am looking more forward to it.

[Left Is Write]

22. You are correct. It is not a remake of a previously made movie.

It is a new version based on someone else's take on the book.

ETA: It also irritates me when people refer to the Gene Wilder movie as "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." The name of the movie is "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."

[jmowreader]

23. There's no way it could be a remake

For one thing, Owsley Stanley's not making acid anymore.

And second, if you know the real deal about Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, you know that the movie was intended to be released at the same time as the tie-in "Wonka" chocolate bars. (It seems that they had the movie ready before they got the chocolates right...) This time, the chocolate bars have been on the market 34 years.

Besides, Tim Burton's making this movie. That GUARANTEES it's going to be a bit more eccentric than The People would have accepted in 1971.