Ouch that trailer almost hurt. I do hope it is not an accurate indication of the mood of the film.
I saw that a while ago and it broke my heart. I read somewhere that the person who wrote this particular screenplay never saw the original movie and just read the book. I think that's tragic. :(
I'd argue it's not necessarily tragic. After all, if they made a movie based on the movie, then it would be a) unnervingly recursive and b) pointless, since the original was very, very good, and therefore does not need to be remade.
On the other hand, the original movie was also at significant variance with the book, and there's no reason not to make another reason based on the *book*. The book is, after all, the original text, not the movie.
Nothing personal, I just find "they only based this movie off the book and that's bad" to be an odd attitude, especially since reinterpreting the movie could only be for the worse; judging *this* movie by comparing it to the original movie will inevitably lead to disappointment, whereas judging the new movie on its own merits, relative to the book if you've read it, could lead to tremendous enjoyment.
The choice, as always, is yours; if you build yourself up to expect it to be a horror marring your good memories of the original movie, it will satisfy your expectations. If you view it as a different movie, based off the same book, you may be pleasantly surprised to find it offers a whole different set of nuances to enjoy.
Idly, I've only ever known the movie as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, too. I think it was released under a different title, here. (e.g. the same title as the book.)
Actually, it does look a lot like Bad Trailer Syndrome to me. Most especially, the scenes it seems to be showing; Wilder, whom I adore, and who I think did a brilliant turn as Wonka, also had some scenes which, taken utterly out of context and put to boppy music, would look just as bad.
The hint of potential badness I saw was the slight possibility that he's doing more Keanu than Carrey. But I have at least a little bit of faith in Johnny Depp.
I also didn't perceive that much wacky and goofy - if anything it seemed less so than a similar trailer made from the original would be. Seriously, Oompa-Loompas and chocolate-river boats and cars driven by fizzy drink - think about what the original would be like with a trailer made in similar mode, and hold on to hope.
It seemed to me that Depp was doing a dead on Michael Jackson impression. Child-like and willfully oblivious, sort of look at "meeeee, I'm preeeeeetty, tra -la-la-la-la". Not that Michael Jackson doesn't have some menace, but I don't think that's the menace they're going for. I cringe. I still have hope in that some good films have really bad trailers.
2005-02-20 03:29 pm (UTC)
On the other hand:
2005-02-20 04:11 pm (UTC)
Re: On the other hand:
I'll be seeing that just for Alexis Bledel.
Just the fact that they're playing that music seems to indicate that the movie will be darker than it appears. I mean, how many times do you hear music like that where somehting doesn't go horribly wrong? Depp and Burton are both known for their like of interesting twists and turns (Big Fish and Edward being prime examples.)
"Dark" isn't always enough, if too much "silly" is present. But I can hope for BTS (Bad Trailer Syndrome).
Springtime for Hitler did it for me ;)
Soringtime for Hitler is brilliant. I'm hoping the remake of that movie will be good.
Some movies just need to be left alone.
In all fairness, the movie is being left alone. As other commenters have pointed out, this isn't meant to be a remake of the original movie.
Johnny Depp at his most androgynous.
Odd extra scene - was that a guy in khakis swatting a flying something?
A trailer with chipmunk music.
Oh, yeah, this is going to be painful. I shall avoid it unless the children just have to see it.
Thank you. I have a number of friends with the audacity to be excited about this movie. It's got me ready to... well, froth about it on the Internet while not going to see it, but you know what I mean.
I have many friends who are excited. I think it could be done well. I'm just not convinced it will.
I'm going to subject myself to this movie for my b-day. This is simply because:
1. I still like Johnny Depp- even though his hair in this instance freaks me out. Some people argue that WW is supposed to have wild hair, as it states in the book, but what is also in the book- is that WW is a perfectionist. And the wig that Depp is wearing is certainly lacking a single hair out of place.
2. I still love Tim for Nightmare before christmas. Yet oddly I'm not connected to any of his other movies. You'd think I'd view this as a sign. But- :shrugs:
3. The Oompaloompas frighten me- and I haven't been to a good scary movie sense the grudge.
4. I'm keeping an open mind about it because, honestly, it isn't fair to compare anything to an old and established movie from it's trailer. It's easy to predict the horror- but then again- I've seen absolutely fantastic trailers- with bum wrap movies behind them. If this one turns out to be a true stinker- at least it wasn't false advertisement.
5. I know my friends- I think I'll be going to this one alone- to silently suffer. And if I end up enjoying it- then I'll take my friends to see it for a second time.
Lastly, I suspect the moviemakers have been up to their ears about how dissapointing the movie doesn't look like the first one. And I suspect maybe this trailer is a shock "Fuck off- this isn't your baby's daddy" type of reaction. They want to shock, and cause a ruckus. They want to make a point very clearly. And I think it does that perfectly. I just wish they didn't do it with the candycoated disney "it's a small world" theme song. *shudders*
See, I don't have a problem as such with them remaking the book. I don't expect or want it to be a retread. But what I saw there was not hopeful that it will succeed in being what I would like to see - dark and menacing.
I will wait for the first reviews.
Looks absolutely brilliant, and it will probably be the first movie I see in the theatre since Shrek.
And if doable, I'll do it when it opens.
I am looking forward to this.
Huh. One of those "Your Mileage May Vary" moments. [g]
So is Depp playing Willy Wonka or Michael Jackson?
Maybe if the music were different the trailer wouldn't seem so bad.
I still have aith that Depp is going o deliver a much better performance than it looks like from the trailor, but that he will be wading through an absolute shithole of a movie, reminiscent of Jim Carrey's version of Grinch. When has wackyness for the sake of wackyness EVER been funny? Or for that matter, watchable?
Oh my gosh, you're right! That Grinch movie was horrible. I wished we never wasted our money the year it came out to see it. I hope this WW movie won't be that bad. :P
When I heard the phrases "Johnny Depp," "Willy Wonka" and "Tim Burton" all in the same sentence, I did an internal happy dance. But this trailer made me make the sort of sound I do when waking from a bad, confusing nightmare.
When I have those nightmares, DH Steve asks "What's wrong, what did you dream?" and I can't quite remember, because putting it into words makes it sound more stupid than scary. "Uhnnnn(whimper) Johnny Depp over-acting hair bad chewing gum is really gross, (sobbing) make the music stoppppppp!"
Of course, I just saw "Because of Winn Dixie" which looks like a laff riot for the WHOLE FAMILY! (Meaning "Your stupid six-year-old will love it, you'll curse the fact that you let the kid pick the movie) from the trailers, but the movie captured the essence of the charming book perfectly. So, yeah, I'll see this, but maybe not soon.
I think the reason we're all so scared of Johnny Depp's hair is that, usually in a Johnny Depp movie, you've at least got eye candy, and that's gone, gone, gone.
Hee hee...no kidding. What on earth was up with that 'chewing gum is really gross' line? That's possibly the most un-Dahl-y dialogue imaginable.