Funny, so in the Wonka version, the focus is Charlie. In the Charlie version, the focus is Wonka. If you switched around the titles then it would be perfect.
The only reason the original was called "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was because the makers of the film wanted to sell actual Wonka bars, so they changed it from "Charlie" to "Willy Wonka" to sell more bars. But unfortunately, the bars deal didn't work out because they melted too fast.
I read this before i watched and i started laughing the first moment i saw depp😂 always agreed with how cringy he was in this roll him and that ethnic umpalumpa got me crying in laughter
@@hightide9513 Tim Burton's remake isn't as "faithful" as a lot of it's defenders claim. The original may have added the Slugworth subplot, but the remake added the Daddy dentist issues back story/subplot (which did nothing other than ruin the element of mystery that defined Wonka's character) and had Wonka make Charlie choose between the factory and his family.
Thinking realistically, if you were locked away in your house for 10-15 years, with no human contact, your only possible friends being your short workers, you’d be pretty socially awkward as well.
I always liked Johnny depps description of his Wonka, he wanted to play it like an insane children's game show host. He refused to watch the original version and just read the books. I do think he went over the top but for what they were going for it kind of worked.
To be fair about Charlie in the remake, he's just that bland in the book as well. In the book he literally does NOTHING after they get to the factory. That's why he wins in the end. He was the only one who didn't do a thing and didn't fuck up. I do agree with old Charlie being more like an actual kid but the new one was going off the book, and there he was bland and a complete saint as well.
Exactly. Wonka's story was probably added so that the movie could have *something* of emotional weight. The book was mainly carried by its bizarre ideas, where, admittedly, like most of Dahl's books, the protagonist kid is completely flawless and perfect. But those bizarre ideas alone wouldn't carry a movie, especially today. I still prefer the original movie, since it kept the heart of the book with Charlie as the main character but gave him a lot more personality and character development. Plus, Wonka himself is definitely not the kind of character to give an emotional weight of a movie to.
The reason why the Johnny Depp Wonka was so out of it was because of his lack of human contact. He's been cooped up in the factory for years, of course he is going to act this way around people, especially children.
A decade of isolation plus a troubled and sheltered childhood with a overprotective domineering father anyone would be more than a little socially and emotionally stunted
@@sarahmorley7751 Seriously. I just watched both versions back to back and the Johnny Depp version was the only one that felt natural. The 1971 version just doesn’t feel right at all.
Didn't he have the entire nation of Umpa Loompas to keep him company though? I personally found Depp's performance extremely creepy, annoying and confused. And this was back in the days when he put actual effort into his roles, rather than basically playing the same character over and over again. I don't know what went wrong but this role might have started it.
Actually it's implied that Wonka specifically chose the children and that's why Slugworth was inexplicably there right after they got the golden tickets. That's how he knew it'd only be kids.
The remake actually has a really sad moment (in the good way) when we see Wonka and his father reunite at the end. We realize that Wonka was actually wearing a (purple) dentist coat and elastic gloves very similar to his father, his father secretly admired Wonka's achievements, and Wonka finally hugs his father (the first time in the movie that Wonka actually doesn't shy away from physical contact) as he forgives him for running away all those years ago.
The Smoking Skull I always thought the point of the remake was the importance of a loving and supportive family. Wonka’s story, how all the kids are the result of their parent’s failings, and Charlie’s idealized character based off of his care for his family and maturity through his struggles all point to this.
Also Gene even at his worst of illness would always try to remain in character as Wonka when out and about because he knew kids in the street knew him as such and didn’t want to ruin the magic for them. There’s a reason he’s known as a comedy legend.
3:20 To defend the remake, he took a liking to Charlie almost immediately. Whenever Charlie asked a question or said something, Wonka actually answered instead of giving a smartass reply like the other ones. A great example was giving Charlie and his grandpa chocolate from the river even though he said not to touch it. He could tell immediately the rest of the kids were shitheads which is why he didn’t give a fuck about them.
@@GG-kn2se Not really. Charlie was just a good kid, same as the original. The others were just unbearable shitheads that annoyed Wonka. I wouldn’t even say Charlie was a Gary Stu or written to be “too good”. He was a kid from humble beginnings who learned quickly to appreciate the opportunity he had, and Wonka saw that and related to it given his own troublesome past
1:41 **Silence** Me: Well, it looks like UA-cam removed every obvious instance of "Pure Imagination" from your video thanks to Warner Bros. I'm just glad they didn't take down the video entirely.
to me gene is one of the greatest legendary people of all time. great warm tone and charisma as seen in later interviews. master of the comedic timing.
The kid that played Charlie in the Tim Burton film went on to play Norman Bates in Bates Motel and he's the main character in The Good Doctor. Amazing actor
Is it wrong I think Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka was hilarious? His performance was so awkward that it made it hilarious. But I completely agree on Charlie.
+KawaiiOtaku Bri I like him better since only a genius with the personality of a child would come up with everything about the factory from it's decor to how the candy is made.
+KawaiiOtaku Bri Johnny Depp played the role like a savant. Mentally crippled and with the mind of a child. Gene Wilder played the role of a trickster, yet adult enough to plan things ahead. I'd call Wilder's Wonka eccentric, and Depps' Wonka as disturbed.
CapnHolic I think that's part of it, actually. Depp's Wonka had to grow up in isolation all by himself because his father ran out on him one day. Even after he met the Oompa Loompas, they were basically the only friends he ever had. Wonka's (Depp) whole plan revolved around getting children who had it all, namely parents and access to anything/everything they wanted (except Charlie of course), and basically humiliating them just like his father would humiliate him. Remember how Wonka hated the braces that made him look weird? All of the "accidents" *permanently* made the children look ten times weirder and definitely humiliated them and their parents. It's almost like he was trying to get back at his father, but had no idea how since he couldn't find him for years and years.
The Smoking Skull Sounds like the fan theory that WW lured children into the factory to gruesomely murder them (and maybe use them as ingredients) As noted, we never see the children after they meet their fate in the original.
Weird true story: My theater teacher was childhood friends with the original actor for Charlie. They both auditioned for the same part, obviously the other kid got it. However, when the film was done he had said he would never want to act again unless for money purposes to support himself.
I feel that these two movies stand on their own, with different interpretations going off the book. Though I enjoy the original a lot more, they both have a unique sense of style. One is delightful and charming, and the other is weird and eerie, but in a good way. This is why I believe that reboots shouldn't be help up so highly to the standard of their original counterpart. Many of them take wildly different directions compared to the movie inspiring it, which shouldn't immediately make it bad.
Agreed. I like Wilder Wonka more than Johnny Wonka (not the actors, the movie. I hold both casts up in high regard) I kinda like how the wonka bars in the remake have more variety like a somewhat real thing. I like the original wrappers though. To compare them and act like one is the one people should adore is only opinion based. The fact is both are their own wacky, sweet, and mysterious stories so they can both be amazing.
That’s kinda how it is for me, when it comes to remakes I don’t really like to force myself into saying that since one version as a whole is better that it’s the only version I’m gonna watch, like for example even though I think the remake is better I still own both True Grit movies because I feel like they offer up 2 different experiences, both of which I like, the original is like a fun lighthearted action adventure whereas the remake is like a dark gritty action drama, so I feel like I have enough of a reason to want to watch both from time to time, and that’s how I feel about these 2 movies, I would say the Willy Wonka version is probably better because even though the visuals, the Oompa Loompa songs and the other kids are all done better in the Charlie version, in fact I think all of those elements blow the versions from the Willy Wonka version out of the water, I felt like Charlie, Grandpa Joe (Even though I enjoy both interpretations for different reasons, the original was more funny and stubborn whereas the newer one was more warm and kind) Willy Wonka and the Oompa Loompas were all done better in the Willy Wonka version, the removal of Slugwortn in the Charlie version I felt like was a mistake, maybe that’s closer to the book but to me I felt like his character was pretty vital, same with Wonka’s outburst at the end, I also didn’t like how they changed the ending in the Charlie version where now Charlie initially turns Wonka down when he says he’s giving him the factory and they also put in that scene of Wonka visiting his father, to me that stuff just felt really unnecessary, I like the nicer, more simple ending of the Willy Wonka version where they go up in the elevator, he says he’s giving Charlie the factory and that’s that, I found that ending much more wholesome, but yeah, the Charlie version still had enough good stuff to where I think it’s also worth watching too, and like with so many other remakes I don’t think people need to be so black and white when it comes to which one they prefer, if you think they’re both good in their own regard then watch both, it doesn’t have to be just one
@dibrose4137The original was a cheaply put together cash grab to sell the new Wonka brand candy at the time and was objectively a disgrace to the source material. It only became a classic and considered great years later after its release
@@Lil_Valorthank you so much for pointing this out, people also seem to forget that it was a critical failure, and a blatant marketing attempt that the author loathed.
@@Lil_Valor Every single Disney adaptation is an absolute disgrace to the source material. And I'm not solely talking about the live action remakes. I agree with the rest of your comment, though.
Old: I have a glass elevator Old elevator: 60% gold New:I have a glass elevator New elevator: 100% glass and so mush tec u can’t see the electrical wiring
Did you know: In the relitively unknown sequel to the book: Charlie and the Chocalate Factory, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, they main antagonists are the vermicious knids, they are a brownish greenish colour with large red eyes and they can morph into any shape they want.
I'm remember reading that book. I remember they were in a space station at one point. I also think I remember all the grandparents being very unlikable in that book. Weird times.
Am I the only one that feels like this should have been a full review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory instead of an Old vs New? It just doesn't feel like he put in the effort to give the remake a fighting chance, in most Old vs New it always comes down to story with both tied at 2 points, here Charlie's version only won in 1 category! That seems pretty pointless if you ask me. A full on review of the remake would just make more sense and probably make way for some good jokes
People hate when he reviews newer/rebooted movies because it always boils down to comparison. Which is fair because when you've already seen one version, people are always going to compare them to the one they saw before. It's gotten to a point that people whinge at him for comparing them when he's reviewing them, because it's his fault apparently that he's seen the older ones first. And it isn't always the case where he says "old is better" but people get annoyed quickly like "oh great, 30min telling us why the original is better". Which... is how the Grinch movies have been.
@@Theaterkid510 if something is made in a different media form, IE book to movie, it's not called a remake it's called an adaptation. And my comment was specifically referring to people calling Charlie and the Chocolate factory a remake of Willy Wonka. Charlie and the Chocolate factory is in no way considered a remake of anything, just a book adaptation.
The new one was more true to the book, and I liked it for that. They did add a lot of extra backstory stuff, and that wasn't really necessary, but the 2005 Wonka is more like the book one than the 1970s one is.
Pig lcarus, Meme Lord No he was not more like Wonka from the book, the 1 in the book was a nice mix between Hyperactive and childlike and wise mature and friendly, Depp's Wonka may have captured the giddiness of the character more but he completely lacked the intelligent side of him.
i dont understand what people mean when they say the new movie is more true to the book. i just went with it before, as i hadnt read the book before, but i just sat down and read it a few months ago and now im completely confused. both movies deviate from the book, but overall the original seems much closer to the book than the new one. in fact, to me the new movie has almost as much contrast to the book as if it were a creepypasta version of it, or ironically a Tim Burton version lol
@@tealablu3759 Man, I hope it wasn't that way when the kid playing Augustus fell into it. Poor kid would have definitely needed a bath if that was the case.
The "remake" is not a remake, it's a different book adaptation meant to be fully accurate to the novel. The 1971 movie is an hour and a half long commercial for the Quaker company, who was selling Wonka branded chocolate at the time and was a co-producer of the movie, twisting the novel into such. The 2005 movie is basically the novel zapped onto the screen by Wonka's teleporter, with a backstory added in. In fact, the family of Roald personally ordered the movie to be made after he died, because Roald himself hated the 1971 movie, and they made sure that not a single person who worked on the new movie watched 1971 Wonka to ensure no influence came from it. Oh, and ironically, the 1971 version had a real chocolate river whereas the 2005 version was water mixed with paint. They had to drain it at one point because the chocolate river went bad before they could finish shooting.
If all this is true, this comment is severely under-liked. I’ve read the book but it’s been a longggg time. I remember Charlie as being a very good “observer”. Well mannered, well behaved, and honest. It’s been so long though, there could be plenty of segments I’ve long forgotten where he’s acting more like the 1971 Charlie. I personally prefer Tim Burton’s version BECAUSE it focuses more on Wonka. They put a spin on his character that made him more interesting, quirky, and relatable. He’s awkward, hilarious, traumatized, and a mad genius. Depp just hits all the right notes. I can see why he’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I personally LOVE him as Wonka. Charlie on the other hand…well, I think in all versions (book included) he’s not SUPER memorable, at least not in the same way Wonka is. I think of Charlie as a very mellow kid. That’s why he wins. Not a lot of kids ARE that “well-behaved” but he was. He does have a good personality, I mean he’s definitely on the quiet side, yet amazingly selfless and mature. That’s why he progresses through the story more than anyone else. He ends up experiencing more because he doesn’t have that “loud mouth” selfish, lying, stuck-up behavior all the other kids have. I do think the music in the 1971 version is FANTASTIC, truly the best thing about the movie. But in my opinion, as for EVERYTHING else…the Burton version takes the cake.
To be fair, no matter what they did, there was no way that people wouldn’t think it was a remake of the original movie. Especially considering how beloved it is, despite it supposedly just being a commercial for Quaker.
Linkvsmysto they're mostly similar, but the movie did remove about a quarter of each song's book lyrics to save time, and to keep it from dragging on too long.
2:12 If Gene Wilder was still alive today, I'd be petitioning for him to star as the villain in "007: The Candy Man." Let's be honest, that movie would be amazing. 5:07 I'm not gonna lie, the only kid in the original that was a brat was Veruca. Mike and Augustus were perfectly polite despite watching too much tv/eating too much candy. Violet had a bit of anger towards her parents but considering that her father was trying to hijack what was a once in a lifetime moment of fame just to promote his business while her mother kept talking over her. The new movie's kids were much brattier so it was more satisfying to eventually see them get karma since they actually deserved it. 10:48 I'm not gonna lie, I prefer the newer version's music. The Oopma Loompa songs from the original were pretty much identical to each other in terms of their melody so once you heard one, you've heard all four while the new movie had much more variety. 12:40 XD I just love how he says that line. What the fuck are those, indeed.
In the original movie, it seemed more like he was being negatively influenced by his mother (her line of "Just keep your eyes open and your mouth shut" supports this when you analyze her tone) so I'd put the blame more on her than on Mike.
I agree with Demon Equalizer but also if you closely examine the Oompa Loompa songs in the 1971 version you'll notice that they have different instrumentals, are written in different keys, etc
if you think thats a "WHAT!" then think of this: his dad told him if he runs away his dad will be gone when he comes back home. he comes back home and THE WHOLE HOUSE IS GONE!!! WTF! NOW THAT A "WHAT!!!"
For the record, Dahl actually described a Vermicious Knid in his sequel book to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. They are described as greenish-brown egg-shaped creatures, that stood on the pointier end, and had two red eyes. Their bodies are literally solid muscle, so they could become longer and thinner or shorter and fatter in shape, and they were carnivorous. Of course, in the book, Vermicious Knids are aliens, not indigenous to Loompaland.
That Charlie version in really underrated. It really takes the concept into a new perspective. To me, it's about as good as the Wonka version mainly because I love the 70s British atmosphere the old one has.
@@jatininti6153really. in my opinion, I thought the Oompa Loompa voices sucked. also in the original, the songs were way more catchy in my opinion especially the Oompa Loompa doompity doo.
That's what I like about Johnny Depp's version, inconsistency, sure, critics may hate that, but it gives off the unpredictable vibes that I absolutely LOVE.
There is actually something you're missing. The only reason Tim Burton wanted the re-adapt Charlie and The Chocolate Factory was for how different the original was from the book. If you read the book and then watch the 2005 Willy Wonka, they're almost identical. Also, Roald Dahl's wife was a executive producer, so every idea they had for this movie had to go through her first. The 2005 version is likely what Dahl would have wanted.
+BitBoy64 Exactly. I preferred the new one because it was more like the book. I didn't like the original, not only because I don't like most musical films, but the ending looked like it was left on a cliffhanger when the Wonkavator floats away in the sky and they roll to the credits. However all of the other Roald Dahl films I've watched were very much like the book, and the only other Roald Dahl film I've seen to have a remake is the BFG.
I'm gonna have to debunk one part about the "analysis" of the new Charlie. Him saying they should sell the ticket for money isn't unrealistic at all. Far from it. Being a child who has grown up in an extremely poor home, he, unlike other children, knows the value of money and what they can do for not just his family, but him as well. Therefore it's perfectly valid for him to suggest this. It would help him in the long run as well, so it isn't as selfless as some people make it out to be. With that being said, yes, he is created to be too much of a saint throughout the entire movie. I just wanted to point out that him suggesting they sell the ticket isn't unrealistic :)
you do know you're talking about a kid, right? that's a pretty fucking a big leap of logic for a kid his age to know about so how is it perfectly valid?
@@MadameMushroom but not in a modern setting. In a modern setting when the new came out especially compared to today you're more likely to get taken out of that family in now circumstance would that work since if this was set when those laws weren't as strict it's be believable. And also it's doubtful youbwould be allowed to make a sacrifice at the age Charlie was.
I think, but don't quote me on this, 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' was named so because a company wanted to make a new brand of confectionery under the name Wonka. Therefore, the Original Willy Wonka film was produced as an advertisement scheme to help promote the new 'Wonka' Products. However, this company later sold on the 'Wonka' company to Nestle.
If you listen closely with the right kind of ears, somewhere in the middle of that line you can hear the exact moment the world had enough of Johnny Depp's nonsense.
You twinkle above us, we twinkle below. GOT THE REFERENCE NOW? (Not really trying to make it sound like a yell, one of those "this is so obvious that I'm pretending to hammer it in")
in defense of the new wonka i think he acted that way cause of the lack of actual human contact. like seriously if i only spoke to oopmaloompas for all those years i think i would be pretty weird too
Mi Ne hes not referring to depp but the character. Because he had no human contact for a long time he is a bit nuts. I Like the old wonka better thoigh
Mi Ne Why are you focusing so hard on if a character is animated or not? That has nothing to do with the actual characters themselves. The way they were written in the book or spoken of or shown for backstory - none of that has to do with anything on a type of character being animated or not. So why keep bringing it up as if that defines how Depp acted? What if he was told TOO act in that manner BECAUSE Wonka himself was supposed to be socially awkward with having no contact with other humans for YEARS. Even if Depp admitted that he had no idea HOW to be Wonka, he got instructions and went with what he had to do. Same thing said for Gene Wilder. None of how they choose to act their characters out has to do with ANYTHING being animated. It's how they choose to represent the characters in their adaptations.
I hate to bring up an old discussion, but I just came across Mi Ne's idiotic remarks and I just couldn't. The poster wasn't referring to Johnny Depp playing Wanka. He was referring to the new Wanka himself. In that universe, Wanka was shut in his factory, only talking to oompaloompas. Therefore, he would go a bit crazy. That is the direction that Depp decided to take the character. A crazy man-child. The characters being CG have no relevance to the point being brought up. I know this is probably a waste as Mi Ne is almost assuredly a very young child, but nonetheless, I felt like I HAD to reply lol
Mi Ne, you MUST be fucking dense. Poster is the term you use when referring to the original person who commented. That would be Seth Abdou in this case. And nobody is referring to Johnny Depp. Literally nobody. This is why you need to be at least 13 before signing up for UA-cam. You really shouldn't be up so late, your kindergarten class is meeting soon. You need the sleep little boy.
Depp's Wonka is just as much of a mastermind as Wilder's. There are several times throughout the movie where he acts as if everything is going according to plan. Like the look on his face when the pipe comes for Augustus, or him pretending to struggle with the gate while Veruca is being abducted and opening it effortlessly when Mr. Salt has to enter.
Fun fact: Johnny Depp based his performance as Willy Wonka on the first time he met Marilyn Manson. He thought Marilyn was very strange, even though he was somebody lots of young people looked up to at the time, and he tried to convey that type of demeanor/persona through Wonka.
@@jimreily7538 a lot of people think this, but Johnny has said that he wasn't trying to act like Michael Jackson and that he's surprised that people see a resemblance.
I freaking love how Johnny Depp played Wonka. I definitely don't think this was his bad performance. He made the movie. So weird. Good morning starshine. The Earth says hello
@@ghost-dh6sb In case you didn't know, the screenwriter didn't come up with that. He took it from "Hair", a musical about hippies during the Vietnam War, who are all against it because they're all about peace and love - and creativity, of course, starting by declaring "This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius". The song Wonka quotes is, of course, "Good Morning Starshine". "You twinkle above us, we twinkle below."
I dont care what nobody says, I love Depp. Full of imagination, yet he had q darker side to him much like Wilder, whom I do prefer, but Depp’s Wonka was much deeper. The reason he wanted to teach the parents a lesson about parenting was because of his own trauma.
Lilia Price No joke, everytime bad stuff happened to the kids, there would be a semi-close up of Wonka staring at them accompanied by an unsetteling musical que. I am not joking, just watch the movie its there.
*laughs in 'someone clearly never read the book'* fun fact: in the original version, Dahl, the writer of the book, had pretty much no say in the production and didn't like the original. So when Tim burton picked it up he was hesitant about it until he brought up the design of the Buckets' house. They also gave Dahl more of a say in the new version, so everything in it is approved by the original writer of the book. Also, the songs in the new version were taken straight from the book. Source: my own experience reading the book and joshscorcher
I don't personally think the moral of the new movie was just "Don't always act like a kid". When I watched it when I was younger I felt the moral leaned more towards a "No matter what happens, your family is always (or at least SHOULD always) be there for you." kind of vibe. Charlie was constantly putting his family first, wanting to sell the golden ticket to bring in money for his family, willing to give up his place in the factory because his family couldn't come... and in the end his support of his family and their support back is what opened up Wonka's eyes to finally make peace with his father and be happy. Wonka's unstable, childish attitude and obsessions stemmed from his past issues with his father and being alone (I do think they could have done a lot better with his backstory scene though, it was pretty unbelievable for his dad to LITERALLY MOVE HIS ENTIRE FUCKING HOUSE when he has a kid living there). It feels more like the moral was more family driven. Of course, that's just an opinion as well.
But... but... I liked the 2005 one as much as the original. None of them are superior to the other in my eyes. Then again I did watch the new one as a child and only watched the original for the first time recently so that could've played a factor.
That's my problem with this video is he doesn't realize that the new one was made to be more faithful to the book and complains about things that the movie took from the book
@@terrortower666I was not saying it was better because it was more accurate to the book I'm saying That's why it was made the way it was and also I feel like he's bringing to much nostalgia and that's why he said the old one is much better than the new one when I feel both are good in there own way
I'd say this was a shortcoming of both versions of the story the film could have elaborated on but didn't. And Highmore makes it work. It's kind of cheating to put Charlie in the supporting charter role. The actual supports in the new one beat the old by a longshot. The old ones have little screentime and lines, disappear abruptly, and are never given a resolution or a proper sendoff.
I don't think Depp's Wonka is bad and he could have been perfect under the right direction, but Wilder's Wonka is one of my favorite performances ever. Nothing can top it. God help Timothée Chalamet.
Just use your imagination! LOL Seriously though, I ended up just singing the tune every time the music cut off in the video. Made the viewing experience MUCH better!
the johnny depp version followed the book a ton. a majority of the lines and actions were the same, even the oompa loompa songs were almost exact only given a few add ins. I use to love both movies but as soon as i read the book the johnny depp version was the one that stood out the most.
Uhhhh willy wonka doesnt have a fucking dad who was a dentist lmao. The johnny depp version is all fucked up. The original is way different from the book, they are both changed considerably but follow extremely closely. Who cares about following the books anyway when the book sequel was so fucking terrible and different, if they had made a sequel to chocolate factory following the 2nd book glass elevator everyone would fucking hate it because it is pure shit
Here's a funny story: When I was in third grade, the new movie had just come out on DVD. They showed it in class so we could understand the book better. I was actually scared of the Oompa Loompas. When I got home that same Friday, my dad and I talked about the story a little, and he said I had to watch the better version. We went to Blockbuster in the evening, I got one of those old Wonka Bars (which is probably still the best chocolate I've ever had) and we watched the original. We laughed, and I understood the morals much better. I really felt the magic from Gene Wilder. Whenever I would go back to Blockbuster after that, I'd buy a Wonka Bar and smile at whoever was at the register. Eventually, both Wonka Bars and Blockbusters would soon cease to exist. I still smile remembering that they were part of my childhood, though.
Am I the only one who, after the first time the music was muted from the video (I assume for copyright reasons), briefly thought there was something wrong with the computer or headphones, so proceeded to check both and have nothing be wrong before the audio returns and put the pieces together?
People need to understand that THESE ARE ADAPTATIONS! They're going to take creative liberties, they're not all going to please the author, but they can still be both good! The Charlie movie had great visuals and the story followed closer to the book. The Willy version had memorable songs and Gene Wilder whose performance, in my opinion, is timeless. But both still manage to be fun and eccentric movies. Both great, different, but great.
+Appringle To each its own. I just wish fans didn't have to be so bitterly competitive about which movie is better. If Willy Wonka had more just two adaptations, such as how Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, and Alice in Wonderland have had multiple adaptations, people would be more open-minded.
I would disagree that the story in Charlie was closer to the book. The backstory on Willy Wonka and his strained relationship with his dad changes the focus of the story ENTIRELY.
I believe Dahl himself despised the 70s one, and his wife said that he would enjoy the 2005 one. They're both great in my opinion, but I just prefer the new one. Maybe it's because I grew up with it.
Yeah Dahl hated the original because he thought Wilder’s Wonka was too gay. I think Dahl would of appreciated the reboot, I don’t think he would of been pleased with the cast of Johnny Depp, but I think he wouldn’t mind with his character. Unlike the original we got to know who Wonka was, he had a purpose. (Yes that’s very controversial)
He was also really pissed how in the book, Charlie was black. Racial inequality was something he wanted a spotlight on when it was a poor minority against a bunch of rich white kids.
Ironically I had just seen the Film Theorists' clip where they said it really _was_ made of chocolate, and that it "smelled terrible and spoiled quickly." Not really arguing the point, though; it looks like runny chocolate milk more than melted chocolate, which is what I would have thought.
Wonka in the new one is so much more awkward. And I love him for it. Personally it's so much more wackier and crazier and more accurate to the book. It shows Wonka's backstory which was very nice, was even more darker and just more enjoyable and funnier.
@@lydia8526 Actually, if you didn’t know, it was revealed that Roald Dahl didn’t enjoy the 1971 adaptation! He tolerated the film but didn’t actually enjoy it due to the many changes made to that adaptation. If you compare, it’s the 2005 adaptation that is more like the book and extra evidence showing this is the fact that Felicity Dahl, Rohald Dahl’s wife before he passed away, helped to produce the 2005 movie and said herself that the 2005 version plays better to the book that the 1971 version.
@AbdulAzeem Shaikh This is a really ridiculous argument I see a ton of people make. We don't know exactly what would have made him like the old movie and we don't know he would have liked the new one seeing as he died before it released, lol. For all we know he would have disliked it even more.
As said by Cinema Sins: THE BOOKS DO NOT FUCKING MATTER. I used to only like the 2005 version, but then I saw the 1971 version and gained a new appreciation for the original. Of course, I had read the novel by Roald Dahl before I saw either one. Both movies stray away a little from the book anyway, but that's what pretty much all movies based off books do. I like both versions and like aspects from both of them.
@@codymojoe5935Yeah, but if it’s already kind of the same story that pretty much takes a lot of elements of the original film, and at least I haven’t heard anybody say either was that faithful to the original book in pretty much all the same places, I think it’s safe to say one movie is more responsible for one existing than the book it was based upon.
thank you. I like both but it's a re-imagining of the story, not a copy of Willy Wonka movie. Wish Doug would get past that. But I love his take on the differences 🙂
Honestly I can't stand this opinion and it is parroted everywhere. If you don't think Gene was accurately representing the social awkwardness of years of isolation already, I shudder to think what sort of people you spend time around in general. Depp is just a cartoon.
@@luxthewriter No he's a ridiculous caricature of what happens when someone stays away from society. Nobody actually acts that way without having some kind of condition underlying. The way the first Wonka acts definitely depicts this in a much more realistic way. If you don't think so you just aren't remembering the first movie properly as the Wonka in it is a socially stunted nightmare who lies and tells half truths constantly, is snarky and sarcastic about serious matters, and pretty much immediately gives up on the kids being anything but crap and then goes right along with them destroying themselves. He is whimsical and fantastic too of course, but he is also largely selfish and uncaring outside of the one person who has proved to be totally pure of heart at the very end of the movie. I haven't even said the Depp Wonka is particularly bad it's just so obviously a caricature and if you are going to say the Gene Wonka isn't acting like a socially stunted shut-in you need to re-watch that first movie lol. My whole point is I feel like none of you have actually met someone like this. I have. An introvert and someone who is completely socially backwards as a result of seclusion are not the same thing at all. Wonka may be both but the depiction Depp gives is not one of an "introvert" it's one of someone on a spectrum.
@@High_Priest_Jonko To be fair, it's not a carbon copy, they were just more faithful. Also, the lyrics were pieced together from the book not taken fully as is. All the lyrics Danny used were from the books, but not all the lyrics from the books were used. More creativity than "Oompa loompa doo ba dee do"
+Lightning Lynx The book was actually a lot darker than the Tim Burton movie though. There was even a lost chapter where two people actually die by falling into a fudge cutter. In fact, the fudge mountain from the movie came from that chapter. Even the finished book was a lot more mean-spirited than either of the movies.
generalcoon47 Have you read any of Dahl's books? There is no moral grey, everyone is either a pure-hearted angel or the spawn of Satan. And trust me, as a guy who had 80% of his children's books on my bookshelf I should know
Ben Wasserman Yeah, and I personally don't think that was a great way to write characters. His characters were always very unrealistically good or evil. That's why I didn't like Matilda, pretty much for the same reason Doug didn't. She was way too nice and her parents were way too evil. Like Doug pointed out, Charlie in the first movie was good but he still had greedy moments. It just makes it more interesting and realistic, in my opinion. Kind of like Wonka's dad at the end of the movie. You can clearly tell he's not a Dahl character because he starts out as evil and nasty as heck but you clearly see at the end, he's not completely evil at heart.
I think both films are equally good. I grew up with Mel Stuart's version, but I recently found Tim burton's version a couple years ago. I instantly loved Tim burton's version. the casting was great and the characters were more fleshed out, and it was more faithful to the book. at the same time, the original Stuart Willy Wonka was a charming, nostalgic film with a more charming feel.
I don't know wh, but as a kid, I truly believed that the original willy wonka actually happerend in real life. There is something about the original one that seems to be more realsitic than the remake that is just fantasy. But I will admit, I both love them and grew up watching them. If they both made me smile in my childhood, then they are both winners. :)
I think the two are a lot more tied than you make them out to be... I love Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and I think its a lot better than you give it credit for. Also, you repeat a couple times that Charlie is the heart of the story, but he's lumped in with the supporting cast? Charlie should have been his own category. Regardless, its still a good video.
the fact that you gave the original the point for the story, considering how much closer Burton was to the book, considering Dahl was removed from the making of the original due to so many changes were being made that he did not like?? not to mention his wife stood close as Burton made his version? when she found out he was making the Bucket house based off of Dahl's writing shed (as he intended it in the book), she let Burton take control and trusted him. she even went as far as to say she wished her husband lived long enough to see this version once it was completed. in the book Wonka was more socially awkward and lost connection of human interaction. in the book, Charlie is SUPPOSE to be a pure hearted kid. the "Jesus" reference of yours is more or less the fact that Charlie is a boy who understands how hard life is for his family and they are all they have. Burton even TOOK LYRICS OF THE OOMPA LOOMPA SONGS AND PUT THEM IN HIS VERSION. due to the amount of similarities to the book, i dont care how much you hate Depp as Wonka, how much you hate Freddie Highmore as Charlie. Burton's version should of gotten that story point.
the story in the 1971 film is better, it’s has better pacing, is told with more clarity and simplicity, and gives a character arc to charlie, who’s a cardboard cutout in the book and burton film. accuracy to the source material doesn’t make a better film.
But hte backstory for Wonka wasn't really needed. You could have done the same things without ever needing to explain why. When you explain why it removes the mystery about the character, and how they are psycho. Instead of seeing a man who has questionable mentality I just see a pathetic child who chose to never grow up because he has daddy issues. I feel sorry for him but I also want to slap him and tell him to get the fuck over it and grow up ya little ninny brat than I fear his mental state. When you look at Gene he has that same wit and guile to him as well as giddyness. He knows reprocussions he knows what it means to make mistakes and he always appears to be on top of things; making you wonder if he is planning on actually harming the children or if he is purposefully trying to purposefully put them in scenarios he knows they will fail in. The best part of a psychotic persona is that you NEVER know what they are going to do, and the most intimidating and interesting ones are the ones who are intelligent to match. In Charlie - you see a child adult. In Wonka - you see a man bordering on the lines of sanity never knowing which way he is going to tilt at any moment.
Blair Bart you sound like an obvious troll. Just because Dahl said he hated the original doesn't mean Depp's is better. He didn't LIVE long enough to see Burtin's version and to rate it; so to use the author's criticism on one film without having him able to do the other is almost null void. Because you never know what he would have said. Also, no...Burtin's version is NOT closer to the book. I read the book, they both divert in equal parts; and that is the point of an interpretation. It isn't meant to be as close to the book as possible, otherwise just copy the book out right, they make their own creative decisions based on what their producers want - editing teams - script writers - things are forced to change. So to use the excuse of "it's closer to the book" is also just as invalid in terms of breaking down the characters themselves. Did you know Wanka originally knew who the winner would be all along because he gave Charley the winning ticket that remained? Depp has absolutley no clue or care who won. Gene knew who would win all along but had to give Charlie an exclusive test. Ever notice why he didn't just turn on charlie and his grandpa for the fizzy lifting drink they "sabatoged"? He is even standing in silence as if waiting for them when they come around the corner. He knew. That is closer than Depp who is just "Tralalalalalalalala, oh, you won, neat.....I think."
There’s no earthly way of knowing Which direction we are going Which way the rivers flowing Is it raining is it snowing Is a hurricane a blowing Not a speck of light is showing so the danger must be growing Are the fires of hell a glowing, is the grizzly reaper mowing YES and they’re certainly not showing ANY SINGS THAT THEY ARE SLOWING!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn't hate the Johnny Depp one, but Gene Wilder was so iconic, and perfect, you just cannot top it. I must say that the Charlie version is much closer to the book, but the ends of both films were not true to the book.
@@EmmaCRBsnewstuff I grew up with the book too, and at the end of the book they took off in the great glass elevator, and picked up Charlies family, and the end alluded to the next book. Charlie and the great glass elevator.
@@miichiixoxo That is a matter of taste, and maybe another reason some people prefer the Gene Wilder one is that we grew up with that. I would not fault anyone for liking the Johnny Depp one more, but you are not going to win everyone over when it is such an iconic character.
What’s funny is that I just finished watching the the therorizer as he talk about both these movies and strang enough, the Johnny Deppt movie is more accurate to the book
Jalen Gaskin of course it is Tim Burton made it and Johnny Depp was an actor in that already makes it sound great plus the books are almost always better comparing Willy Wonka to Charlie is like comparing the new IT to the old one.
When I want to watch it for the story, I watch the wonka version. When I want to watch it for the creepy random bullshit, I watch the Charlie version. *the Charlie version deeply disturbed me when I was younger. Now I just am Mildly creeped out.*
The author of the origional book - Roald Dahl - hated everything about the 1971st movie. He said, that creators understand nothing from his book and did it completely wrong. His family approved Tim Burton as a director when they got to know, that his ideas were completely in line with Roald's vision.
The problem I have with the 1971 version is that it is just a commercial for a chocolate brand that is barely based on the books. It's actually the reason that Roald Dahl didn't want another Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptation because he thought it was SO BAD and so far from the original book that it was not even comparable. The 2000's version however is an almost perfect adaptation of the book with the characters acting so much closer to how they did in the books. This is also the reason my favourite Wonka is Depp's Wonka, as he acts as if he has been away in a factory for 10-15 years. Obviously, he wouldn't be charming to people, he hasn't interacted with anyone besides Oompa Loompas in years! The music is another example of what the Tim Burton film did better as each song fits the character it's about and the lyrics are based on Dahl's actual poems from the books. They are their own songs and not just the same words with one line changed each time. While the original songs may be 'classics', that often clouds people's view of this entire film as people believe that old = good when in reality, Wonka had so many problems including plot holes, an incredibly low budget, and the fact that it was literally JUST MADE TO ADVERTISE A CHOCOLATE BRAND. While it may be an iconic film now, the only reason it's a classic and not some old-forgotten film is because it was shown on TV as filler because it failed at the box office so was cheap to play. In conclusion, I feel that nostalgia does cloud people's judgement, INCLUDING this video which is supposed to critique films DESPITE nostalgia, not using 'but it's a classic' as an excuse as to why something is 'good'.
But Wonka would at least know how too have some charisma of his own. Then what would be the point of inviting people into your factory & you don’t even know how too connect with them? & wouldn’t Wonka be at the very least social enough too know how to convey & carry himself with confidence? Hence why Wilders version is just the more better. He didn’t need a tragic backstory, he was a mysterious, sarcastic madman. You didn’t know what he could do next. He allowed for the action & fun too speak for itself & stood quite. Gene had internal rage, humor, sadness, disappointment, regret, passion. & the Christopher Lee subplot that wasn’t in the book at all is proof that Burton didn’t understand the characterization of Wonka.
“Come with me and you’ll be in a land of copyright infringements”
Underrated comment
Girl I spit out my tea. 😂😂😂
@@j.l.m.6954 They are both Warner, aren't they?
@@TheNotverysocial I’m not sure but it makes sense typical behavior 😂
Really? The intro music to this is okay, but the other song isn't? Wtf kinda logic is that?
Honestly they seem like two totally different stories going along with the same premise. At this point I don’t even bother comparing them
Professor Ozpin Agreed. It’s much more enjoyable to treat them as separate stories.
Say it louder for the people in the back!! They're BOTH masterpieces in their own amazing way! 😤👌🤩
Where does the book come into this?
Then don’t watch it if you dont like comparing them.
at least the author's familly doesn't hate the second one
Funny, so in the Wonka version, the focus is Charlie. In the Charlie version, the focus is Wonka. If you switched around the titles then it would be perfect.
The only reason the original was called "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was because the makers of the film wanted to sell actual Wonka bars, so they changed it from "Charlie" to "Willy Wonka" to sell more bars. But unfortunately, the bars deal didn't work out because they melted too fast.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the name of the book, which the Tim Burton version of the movie is actually faithful to.
@@hightide9513 IKR, EVERYONE IGNORES THAT WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE TWO VERSIONS
I read this before i watched and i started laughing the first moment i saw depp😂 always agreed with how cringy he was in this roll him and that ethnic umpalumpa got me crying in laughter
@@hightide9513 Tim Burton's remake isn't as "faithful" as a lot of it's defenders claim. The original may have added the Slugworth subplot, but the remake added the Daddy dentist issues back story/subplot (which did nothing other than ruin the element of mystery that defined Wonka's character) and had Wonka make Charlie choose between the factory and his family.
Thinking realistically, if you were locked away in your house for 10-15 years, with no human contact, your only possible friends being your short workers, you’d be pretty socially awkward as well.
Yeah right
He interacted well with people before so when exactly did he get socially awkward?
I always liked Johnny depps description of his Wonka, he wanted to play it like an insane children's game show host. He refused to watch the original version and just read the books. I do think he went over the top but for what they were going for it kind of worked.
Kind of like Doug Walker in real life.
"Muh realism!"
Idiot.
To be fair about Charlie in the remake, he's just that bland in the book as well. In the book he literally does NOTHING after they get to the factory. That's why he wins in the end. He was the only one who didn't do a thing and didn't fuck up. I do agree with old Charlie being more like an actual kid but the new one was going off the book, and there he was bland and a complete saint as well.
Exactly. Wonka's story was probably added so that the movie could have *something* of emotional weight. The book was mainly carried by its bizarre ideas, where, admittedly, like most of Dahl's books, the protagonist kid is completely flawless and perfect. But those bizarre ideas alone wouldn't carry a movie, especially today. I still prefer the original movie, since it kept the heart of the book with Charlie as the main character but gave him a lot more personality and character development. Plus, Wonka himself is definitely not the kind of character to give an emotional weight of a movie to.
people say "the new charlie is too good" but remember the scene where he argues with wonka & tells him his deserves to go out of business?
Charlie: If I do nothing, I can do nothing wrong!
Wonka: That's the spirit! (Gives him a small loan of a million chocolate bars)
I agree son you the remake is a dark ripoff of its one kind of culture
@@EmmaCRBsnewstuff that is true, but it's just one scene. We need the entire movie to convey that he's only a human child.
The reason why the Johnny Depp Wonka was so out of it was because of his lack of human contact. He's been cooped up in the factory for years, of course he is going to act this way around people, especially children.
The Johnny Depp version is superior in every way.
A decade of isolation plus a troubled and sheltered childhood with a overprotective domineering father anyone would be more than a little socially and emotionally stunted
@@sarahmorley7751 Seriously. I just watched both versions back to back and the Johnny Depp version was the only one that felt natural. The 1971 version just doesn’t feel right at all.
Didn't he have the entire nation of Umpa Loompas to keep him company though? I personally found Depp's performance extremely creepy, annoying and confused. And this was back in the days when he put actual effort into his roles, rather than basically playing the same character over and over again. I don't know what went wrong but this role might have started it.
@@user-qj9en1kp1m His creepiness made the movie better.
Fun Fact:
The Oompa Loompa songs in the remake actually took lines directly from Ronald Dahl’s quirky poems in the original book
That's only a fun fact to people that didn't read the book
@@KitWasTaken64 like me!
OMG I didn’t know that! Then again I’ve never read the book.
@Caitlyn Carvalho what's that?
@@jinhunterslay1638 2023 Willy Wonka and reference to other 2 personalities of Willy Wonka real🧐🧐
Actually it's implied that Wonka specifically chose the children and that's why Slugworth was inexplicably there right after they got the golden tickets. That's how he knew it'd only be kids.
He was definitely watching the ticket locations at minimum.
that Jesus comparison with the chocolate being bread was *hilarious*
It's funny because it is pretty much what is happening
Personally, i wish jesus was black so we could eat chocolate at church instead of bread.
JK
+PotatoKing Gaming it would just be whole wheat bread.
whole wheat bread!!!
+darkmantlestudios golly
yep
The remake actually has a really sad moment (in the good way) when we see Wonka and his father reunite at the end. We realize that Wonka was actually wearing a (purple) dentist coat and elastic gloves very similar to his father, his father secretly admired Wonka's achievements, and Wonka finally hugs his father (the first time in the movie that Wonka actually doesn't shy away from physical contact) as he forgives him for running away all those years ago.
The Smoking Skull I always thought the point of the remake was the importance of a loving and supportive family. Wonka’s story, how all the kids are the result of their parent’s failings, and Charlie’s idealized character based off of his care for his family and maturity through his struggles all point to this.
The Smoking Skull the new one is still shit though
Wonkas dad was also played by Christopher Lee. Which is the only real good part of the movie, the rest is just fake good.
shut up nostalgia critic
TheRockhead9
Same here
Rest in Peace original Violet
She died of a stroke a couple of days ago...
Really? Damn. Another reminder that our world sucks.
Oh god I didn't know that.
Rest I'm peace, her performance in the movie was brilliant
f
😥
F
Also Gene even at his worst of illness would always try to remain in character as Wonka when out and about because he knew kids in the street knew him as such and didn’t want to ruin the magic for them. There’s a reason he’s known as a comedy legend.
The Wonka version
“Uh- it’s Wonka vision”
Underrated joke
Yes hahaha
Gene Wilder: Mysterious Wonka
Johnny Depp: *Anti-social Wonka*
Johnny Depp Willy Wonka weirds me out
@Eth4n LeL the character himself maybe but I don’t know he’s just a weirdo and like this guy said kinda screws the movie some
@@ralphthompson9033 He's like Micheal Jackson
@Hooty HOOT HOOT idk man I could stand him though
To be fair, I would likely have social issues too if I locked myself in a factory for decades with no one else to talk to besides Oompa Loompas.
"Willy Wonka"
*_Its about Charlie_*
"Charlie in the Chocolate Factory"
*_Its about Wonka_*
Capissotor because logic
Those two movies are like Yin & Yang. Each complement one another xD
Plot twist it’s. A loop
Toastte your goddamn right sorry if i wrote it wrong
Confused screaming
3:20
To defend the remake, he took a liking to Charlie almost immediately. Whenever Charlie asked a question or said something, Wonka actually answered instead of giving a smartass reply like the other ones. A great example was giving Charlie and his grandpa chocolate from the river even though he said not to touch it. He could tell immediately the rest of the kids were shitheads which is why he didn’t give a fuck about them.
Depp Wonka: (looks at Charlie once) Yep he won the factory already. *Hope he likes to abandon his family-*
That’s worse. Charlie earned it every step of the way in the original. Here it’s just gifted to him.
@@GG-kn2se
Not really. Charlie was just a good kid, same as the original. The others were just unbearable shitheads that annoyed Wonka. I wouldn’t even say Charlie was a Gary Stu or written to be “too good”. He was a kid from humble beginnings who learned quickly to appreciate the opportunity he had, and Wonka saw that and related to it given his own troublesome past
@GG-kn2se he didn't even earn it in the original, he should have lost when him and Grandpa Joe drank the fizzy drink even though Willy said not to
@@GG-kn2seby which you mean, stealing fizzy lifting drink and almost getting maimed or killed...
*Yep earned it every step of the way*
1:41 **Silence**
Me: Well, it looks like UA-cam removed every obvious instance of "Pure Imagination" from your video thanks to Warner Bros. I'm just glad they didn't take down the video entirely.
what the H3ll happend why did the sound cut out???
Gamer kid 64 I thought my headphones broke lol
"This kid could try out for Jesus"
Wisely Badmon lol
I heard he got the role
And later he played a psychotic killer with different personalities
willy's response: "HAHAHAHAHA!!!".
And make the role!
Rest In Peace Gene Wilder, he will be missed.
He was great
to me gene is one of the greatest legendary people of all time. great warm tone and charisma as seen in later interviews. master of the comedic timing.
Did he passed away?
He looks like he would’ve played the joker or any creepy character but I like him as Willy Wonka
Yeah he's in a great place
The kid that played Charlie in the Tim Burton film went on to play Norman Bates in Bates Motel and he's the main character in The Good Doctor. Amazing actor
He's amazing.
"I AM A SURGEON!"
Is it wrong I think Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka was hilarious? His performance was so awkward that it made it hilarious. But I completely agree on Charlie.
He actually was pretty funny.
+KawaiiOtaku Bri I like him better since only a genius with the personality of a child would come up with everything about the factory from it's decor to how the candy is made.
+KawaiiOtaku Bri Johnny Depp played the role like a savant. Mentally crippled and with the mind of a child. Gene Wilder played the role of a trickster, yet adult enough to plan things ahead.
I'd call Wilder's Wonka eccentric, and Depps' Wonka as disturbed.
CapnHolic I think that's part of it, actually. Depp's Wonka had to grow up in isolation all by himself because his father ran out on him one day. Even after he met the Oompa Loompas, they were basically the only friends he ever had. Wonka's (Depp) whole plan revolved around getting children who had it all, namely parents and access to anything/everything they wanted (except Charlie of course), and basically humiliating them just like his father would humiliate him. Remember how Wonka hated the braces that made him look weird? All of the "accidents" *permanently* made the children look ten times weirder and definitely humiliated them and their parents. It's almost like he was trying to get back at his father, but had no idea how since he couldn't find him for years and years.
The Smoking Skull Sounds like the fan theory that WW lured children into the factory to gruesomely murder them (and maybe use them as ingredients) As noted, we never see the children after they meet their fate in the original.
Weird true story: My theater teacher was childhood friends with the original actor for Charlie. They both auditioned for the same part, obviously the other kid got it. However, when the film was done he had said he would never want to act again unless for money purposes to support himself.
Hikari Angel he probably would've been able to support himself for like 20 years.
Fuck ☠️
peter ostrum (the og actor for charlie) was my dancer teachers uncle! so hey cool connection i guess!
So Cool!
Hikari Angel that sounds cool.
I feel that these two movies stand on their own, with different interpretations going off the book. Though I enjoy the original a lot more, they both have a unique sense of style. One is delightful and charming, and the other is weird and eerie, but in a good way.
This is why I believe that reboots shouldn't be help up so highly to the standard of their original counterpart. Many of them take wildly different directions compared to the movie inspiring it, which shouldn't immediately make it bad.
Agreed. I like Wilder Wonka more than Johnny Wonka (not the actors, the movie. I hold both casts up in high regard) I kinda like how the wonka bars in the remake have more variety like a somewhat real thing. I like the original wrappers though. To compare them and act like one is the one people should adore is only opinion based. The fact is both are their own wacky, sweet, and mysterious stories so they can both be amazing.
That’s kinda how it is for me, when it comes to remakes I don’t really like to force myself into saying that since one version as a whole is better that it’s the only version I’m gonna watch, like for example even though I think the remake is better I still own both True Grit movies because I feel like they offer up 2 different experiences, both of which I like, the original is like a fun lighthearted action adventure whereas the remake is like a dark gritty action drama, so I feel like I have enough of a reason to want to watch both from time to time, and that’s how I feel about these 2 movies, I would say the Willy Wonka version is probably better because even though the visuals, the Oompa Loompa songs and the other kids are all done better in the Charlie version, in fact I think all of those elements blow the versions from the Willy Wonka version out of the water, I felt like Charlie, Grandpa Joe (Even though I enjoy both interpretations for different reasons, the original was more funny and stubborn whereas the newer one was more warm and kind) Willy Wonka and the Oompa Loompas were all done better in the Willy Wonka version, the removal of Slugwortn in the Charlie version I felt like was a mistake, maybe that’s closer to the book but to me I felt like his character was pretty vital, same with Wonka’s outburst at the end, I also didn’t like how they changed the ending in the Charlie version where now Charlie initially turns Wonka down when he says he’s giving him the factory and they also put in that scene of Wonka visiting his father, to me that stuff just felt really unnecessary, I like the nicer, more simple ending of the Willy Wonka version where they go up in the elevator, he says he’s giving Charlie the factory and that’s that, I found that ending much more wholesome, but yeah, the Charlie version still had enough good stuff to where I think it’s also worth watching too, and like with so many other remakes I don’t think people need to be so black and white when it comes to which one they prefer, if you think they’re both good in their own regard then watch both, it doesn’t have to be just one
@dibrose4137The original was a cheaply put together cash grab to sell the new Wonka brand candy at the time and was objectively a disgrace to the source material. It only became a classic and considered great years later after its release
@@Lil_Valorthank you so much for pointing this out, people also seem to forget that it was a critical failure, and a blatant marketing attempt that the author loathed.
@@Lil_Valor Every single Disney adaptation is an absolute disgrace to the source material. And I'm not solely talking about the live action remakes. I agree with the rest of your comment, though.
Old: I have a glass elevator
Old elevator: 60% gold
New:I have a glass elevator
New elevator: 100% glass and so mush tec u can’t see the electrical wiring
Did you know: In the relitively unknown sequel to the book: Charlie and the Chocalate Factory, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, they main antagonists are the vermicious knids, they are a brownish greenish colour with large red eyes and they can morph into any shape they want.
Goldeneye Lion. Man, those Vermicious Knids. They gave me childhood nightmares.
I'm remember reading that book. I remember they were in a space station at one point. I also think I remember all the grandparents being very unlikable in that book. Weird times.
Hah I remember them, and when Charlie's grandma was unborn
Am I the only one that feels like this should have been a full review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory instead of an Old vs New? It just doesn't feel like he put in the effort to give the remake a fighting chance, in most Old vs New it always comes down to story with both tied at 2 points, here Charlie's version only won in 1 category! That seems pretty pointless if you ask me. A full on review of the remake would just make more sense and probably make way for some good jokes
People hate when he reviews newer/rebooted movies because it always boils down to comparison. Which is fair because when you've already seen one version, people are always going to compare them to the one they saw before. It's gotten to a point that people whinge at him for comparing them when he's reviewing them, because it's his fault apparently that he's seen the older ones first.
And it isn't always the case where he says "old is better" but people get annoyed quickly like "oh great, 30min telling us why the original is better". Which... is how the Grinch movies have been.
@@chaosfox2852 People are just salty like that
I strongly disagree with this video too
I grew up with the Charlie version so I like this one. So it's what you believe
@@ajg9577 i grew up with the Charlie version too but i like the wonka version better
I am so sick of people calling Charlie and the Chocolate Factory a remake, it is not a remake they are both separate adaptations of the same book..
It is a remake of the book though
@@Theaterkid510 if something is made in a different media form, IE book to movie, it's not called a remake it's called an adaptation. And my comment was specifically referring to people calling Charlie and the Chocolate factory a remake of Willy Wonka. Charlie and the Chocolate factory is in no way considered a remake of anything, just a book adaptation.
Sure there are other things to get "so sick" about.
Things that actually matter
@@MrShroomz84 and I'm sick of them as well
@@Theaterkid510 A film adaptation of a book is not a "remake". It's important to know what words mean before joining a discussion using them
I actually like both
Johnny Depp and Gene Wilder do a great job
The music for both are kickass
The supporting cast is great for both
Visuals are great
Me too I grew up with johny Depp ' s willy wonka
@@arielruh7773 I grew up with both
I grew up with both, and I agree.
I agree 10000000000%
I only like Depp Wonka
The new one was more true to the book, and I liked it for that. They did add a lot of extra backstory stuff, and that wasn't really necessary, but the 2005 Wonka is more like the book one than the 1970s one is.
Pig Lcarus Meme Lord it is like the book, expect it's kind of the book done bad.
Pig lcarus, Meme Lord No he was not more like Wonka from the book, the 1 in the book was a nice mix between Hyperactive and childlike and wise mature and friendly, Depp's Wonka may have captured the giddiness of the character more but he completely lacked the intelligent side of him.
i dont understand what people mean when they say the new movie is more true to the book. i just went with it before, as i hadnt read the book before, but i just sat down and read it a few months ago and now im completely confused. both movies deviate from the book, but overall the original seems much closer to the book than the new one. in fact, to me the new movie has almost as much contrast to the book as if it were a creepypasta version of it, or ironically a Tim Burton version lol
ScarletWolfang
Lol, accuracy doesn't make a enjoyable film though. The Fullmetal Alchemist movie was accurate but it still sucked.
*"Its polluted!"*
*"It's chocolate!"*
*"NO IT'S NOT!"*
It is its just watered down and lots of milk and sugar
It apparently smelled terrible part way into filming because the milk spoiled
@@tealablu3759 Man, I hope it wasn't that way when the kid playing Augustus fell into it. Poor kid would have definitely needed a bath if that was the case.
The "remake" is not a remake, it's a different book adaptation meant to be fully accurate to the novel. The 1971 movie is an hour and a half long commercial for the Quaker company, who was selling Wonka branded chocolate at the time and was a co-producer of the movie, twisting the novel into such. The 2005 movie is basically the novel zapped onto the screen by Wonka's teleporter, with a backstory added in. In fact, the family of Roald personally ordered the movie to be made after he died, because Roald himself hated the 1971 movie, and they made sure that not a single person who worked on the new movie watched 1971 Wonka to ensure no influence came from it.
Oh, and ironically, the 1971 version had a real chocolate river whereas the 2005 version was water mixed with paint. They had to drain it at one point because the chocolate river went bad before they could finish shooting.
I know what UA-cam video you watched and got this from, I watched it too and I agree
If all this is true, this comment is severely under-liked. I’ve read the book but it’s been a longggg time. I remember Charlie as being a very good “observer”. Well mannered, well behaved, and honest. It’s been so long though, there could be plenty of segments I’ve long forgotten where he’s acting more like the 1971 Charlie. I personally prefer Tim Burton’s version BECAUSE it focuses more on Wonka. They put a spin on his character that made him more interesting, quirky, and relatable. He’s awkward, hilarious, traumatized, and a mad genius. Depp just hits all the right notes. I can see why he’s not everyone’s cup of tea but I personally LOVE him as Wonka. Charlie on the other hand…well, I think in all versions (book included) he’s not SUPER memorable, at least not in the same way Wonka is. I think of Charlie as a very mellow kid. That’s why he wins. Not a lot of kids ARE that “well-behaved” but he was. He does have a good personality, I mean he’s definitely on the quiet side, yet amazingly selfless and mature. That’s why he progresses through the story more than anyone else. He ends up experiencing more because he doesn’t have that “loud mouth” selfish, lying, stuck-up behavior all the other kids have. I do think the music in the 1971 version is FANTASTIC, truly the best thing about the movie. But in my opinion, as for EVERYTHING else…the Burton version takes the cake.
To be fair, no matter what they did, there was no way that people wouldn’t think it was a remake of the original movie. Especially considering how beloved it is, despite it supposedly just being a commercial for Quaker.
Ok but that was amazing when Johnny Depp just said “Oh.. I don’t care..”
i liked that too
I think it makes sense. He knows that *one* of the kids will run his buisness, he'll bother remembering them when he notice they might be the one.
Actually, the Tim Burton one is more like the book, so it mostly depends on whether you're faithful to the book or not that you'll like Charlie.
Even the songs are almost exactly like in the book in the Tim Burton version.
TheJdawg but the book was pretty boring and then again the songs in the book are not the same they're similar
I think the book was great! I read it just recently and loved it.
Yeah, thats why the people who like the remake better liked it. But I judge movies as movies. Willy Wonka rules
Linkvsmysto they're mostly similar, but the movie did remove about a quarter of each song's book lyrics to save time, and to keep it from dragging on too long.
2:12 If Gene Wilder was still alive today, I'd be petitioning for him to star as the villain in "007: The Candy Man." Let's be honest, that movie would be amazing.
5:07 I'm not gonna lie, the only kid in the original that was a brat was Veruca. Mike and Augustus were perfectly polite despite watching too much tv/eating too much candy. Violet had a bit of anger towards her parents but considering that her father was trying to hijack what was a once in a lifetime moment of fame just to promote his business while her mother kept talking over her. The new movie's kids were much brattier so it was more satisfying to eventually see them get karma since they actually deserved it.
10:48 I'm not gonna lie, I prefer the newer version's music. The Oopma Loompa songs from the original were pretty much identical to each other in terms of their melody so once you heard one, you've heard all four while the new movie had much more variety.
12:40 XD I just love how he says that line. What the fuck are those, indeed.
Although, like Veruca, Mike was willing to betray Wonka to Slugworth.
In the original movie, it seemed more like he was being negatively influenced by his mother (her line of "Just keep your eyes open and your mouth shut" supports this when you analyze her tone) so I'd put the blame more on her than on Mike.
Agree with you on the music
I agree with Demon Equalizer but also if you closely examine the Oompa Loompa songs in the 1971 version you'll notice that they have different instrumentals, are written in different keys, etc
Then you really wouldn't have liked the book's version of the songs, they only sang them with drums.
Wilder’s Wonka is how Doug Walker envisions himself while he’s really Depp’s Wonka.
I agree especially since 2016 or 2015
Old Wanka is calm snooty and mysterious
New Wanka is socially awkward lonely and creepy
Both shouldn't be around children
Wanka? 😂
@@ZeloraYT don't you love auto correct?
It rather me be Australian than normal Willy Wanka sounds like machine that jerks you off.
@@ZeloraYT I'm not changing it they're both Wankers in my book
Ikr 😂
yeah, but can you really blame them? they've been locked up with no company for 3 years. i daresay we'd all go crazy if that happened to us.
Willy Wonka: Focuses on Charlie
Charlie: Focuses on Wonka
WHAT?
These are confusing times
if you think thats a "WHAT!" then think of this: his dad told him if he runs away his dad will be gone when he comes back home. he comes back home and THE WHOLE HOUSE IS GONE!!! WTF! NOW THAT A "WHAT!!!"
Yeah that is a bit weird
@@mariozaney6423 dr. wonka is mr. incredible?
I thought you couldn't talk
"This kid could try out for Jesus" I fucking died of laughter but came back to life to finish the video.
Perchance, did it take you three days?
MacisStrange lmfao
thegrouchization Fucking underrated comment.
When you realize the 2005 Chocolate factory is a Psycho prequel
Norrman!
For the record, Dahl actually described a Vermicious Knid in his sequel book to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. They are described as greenish-brown egg-shaped creatures, that stood on the pointier end, and had two red eyes. Their bodies are literally solid muscle, so they could become longer and thinner or shorter and fatter in shape, and they were carnivorous. Of course, in the book, Vermicious Knids are aliens, not indigenous to Loompaland.
they would be burned by the atmposphere if they tried to go to earth
I actually liked the Remake, Even though it's unpopular opinion.
Liking is fine. I liked many elements of it. But in comparison to the original it was a fail.
I agree, the remake is better than the original.
@@habariasante3601 meth is never 👌
Jonathan Caro What’s meth got to do with it?
@@habariasante3601 how else wpuld you like the remake more
I liked depps version JUST because he felt like he had been a recluse for ever. It made sense to me
Considering my anxieties, Wilder is me on the inside and Depp is me on the outside lol
That Charlie version in really underrated. It really takes the concept into a new perspective. To me, it's about as good as the Wonka version mainly because I love the 70s British atmosphere the old one has.
KermisVoyager1997 But there’s nothing really properly British about the 70s version imo
Yeah, and the music is so much more futuristic and updated. Unlike 1971, these seem like songs you can put in a modern day album.
@@jatininti6153really. in my opinion, I thought the Oompa Loompa voices sucked. also in the original, the songs were way more catchy in my opinion especially the Oompa Loompa doompity doo.
The 70's version feels more German than British to me.
That's what I like about Johnny Depp's version, inconsistency, sure, critics may hate that, but it gives off the unpredictable vibes that I absolutely LOVE.
Not to mention:
The Johnny Depp version is more accurate to the book.
Gene Wilder isn’t even who Roald Dahl wanted playing Wonka.
@@lydiaboll2872 isn't Roald Dahl's rather negative opinion on the first movie what made it take forever for another adaptation in the first place?
@@jon85753Yep!
Actually critics liked this movie. It was the audiences who didn't really give it a chance.
@@lydiaboll2872 Dahl's Wonka was eccentric, not a Cloud Cuckoolander. He also didn't have a pointless backstory.
There is actually something you're missing. The only reason Tim Burton wanted the re-adapt Charlie and The Chocolate Factory was for how different the original was from the book. If you read the book and then watch the 2005 Willy Wonka, they're almost identical. Also, Roald Dahl's wife was a executive producer, so every idea they had for this movie had to go through her first. The 2005 version is likely what Dahl would have wanted.
+BitBoy64 Exactly. I preferred the new one because it was more like the book. I didn't like the original, not only because I don't like most musical films, but the ending looked like it was left on a cliffhanger when the Wonkavator floats away in the sky and they roll to the credits. However all of the other Roald Dahl films I've watched were very much like the book, and the only other Roald Dahl film I've seen to have a remake is the BFG.
Yeah, I think it's funny how Disney remade a movie that wasn't even theirs.
Dahl would have wanted the much worse music in the 2005 movie too?
Actually, the lyrics in the songs from the 2005 movie are taken straight from the book. Except Wonka's Welcome Song. F*ck that song.
Uh, what about that stupid subplot with his dad. Old is more faithful. Wonka is nothing like his book counterpart in the 2005 movie.
Even when the Wonka version wins almost every one of them, he still gives praise to the Charlie version.
I'm gonna have to debunk one part about the "analysis" of the new Charlie.
Him saying they should sell the ticket for money isn't unrealistic at all. Far from it. Being a child who has grown up in an extremely poor home, he, unlike other children, knows the value of money and what they can do for not just his family, but him as well. Therefore it's perfectly valid for him to suggest this. It would help him in the long run as well, so it isn't as selfless as some people make it out to be.
With that being said, yes, he is created to be too much of a saint throughout the entire movie. I just wanted to point out that him suggesting they sell the ticket isn't unrealistic :)
AiraSora
Agreed
he'll end up being a doctor. LOL "Good Doctor" on ABC
you do know you're talking about a kid, right? that's a pretty fucking a big leap of logic for a kid his age to know about so how is it perfectly valid?
@@Fureiji88 as someone who grew up in a big family and in poverty, its not unrealistic. I used to sacrifice for my family.
@@MadameMushroom but not in a modern setting. In a modern setting when the new came out especially compared to today you're more likely to get taken out of that family in now circumstance would that work since if this was set when those laws weren't as strict it's be believable. And also it's doubtful youbwould be allowed to make a sacrifice at the age Charlie was.
My favorite joke in the new one is when the guy hands Wonka the business card and he just tosses it behind his back immediately when he gets it.
A joke that’s been done dozens of times before
I think, but don't quote me on this, 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory' was named so because a company wanted to make a new brand of confectionery under the name Wonka. Therefore, the Original Willy Wonka film was produced as an advertisement scheme to help promote the new 'Wonka' Products. However, this company later sold on the 'Wonka' company to Nestle.
From what I remember you're right. Best movie made for marketing ever, in that case. :)
Thanks and true, true XD
you are so right
Djdjxjxjxj Xmxmkxkcck Thanks :D
Johno's World it was a book before the movie
Good morning star shine. The earth says hello.
If you listen closely with the right kind of ears, somewhere in the middle of that line you can hear the exact moment the world had enough of Johnny Depp's nonsense.
You twinkle above us, we twinkle below.
GOT THE REFERENCE NOW? (Not really trying to make it sound like a yell, one of those "this is so obvious that I'm pretending to hammer it in")
I quote that
Good bye Willy Wonka the health inspectors say hello
Tripper Getem me: hi i guess
(mind) weirdo
in defense of the new wonka i think he acted that way cause of the lack of actual human contact. like seriously if i only spoke to oopmaloompas for all those years i think i would be pretty weird too
Mi Ne are you missing a word or something because your comment makes no sense
Mi Ne hes not referring to depp but the character. Because he had no human contact for a long time he is a bit nuts. I Like the old wonka better thoigh
Mi Ne Why are you focusing so hard on if a character is animated or not? That has nothing to do with the actual characters themselves. The way they were written in the book or spoken of or shown for backstory - none of that has to do with anything on a type of character being animated or not. So why keep bringing it up as if that defines how Depp acted? What if he was told TOO act in that manner BECAUSE Wonka himself was supposed to be socially awkward with having no contact with other humans for YEARS. Even if Depp admitted that he had no idea HOW to be Wonka, he got instructions and went with what he had to do. Same thing said for Gene Wilder. None of how they choose to act their characters out has to do with ANYTHING being animated. It's how they choose to represent the characters in their adaptations.
I hate to bring up an old discussion, but I just came across Mi Ne's idiotic remarks and I just couldn't. The poster wasn't referring to Johnny Depp playing Wanka. He was referring to the new Wanka himself. In that universe, Wanka was shut in his factory, only talking to oompaloompas. Therefore, he would go a bit crazy. That is the direction that Depp decided to take the character. A crazy man-child. The characters being CG have no relevance to the point being brought up. I know this is probably a waste as Mi Ne is almost assuredly a very young child, but nonetheless, I felt like I HAD to reply lol
Mi Ne, you MUST be fucking dense. Poster is the term you use when referring to the original person who commented. That would be Seth Abdou in this case. And nobody is referring to Johnny Depp. Literally nobody. This is why you need to be at least 13 before signing up for UA-cam. You really shouldn't be up so late, your kindergarten class is meeting soon. You need the sleep little boy.
Depp's Wonka is just as much of a mastermind as Wilder's. There are several times throughout the movie where he acts as if everything is going according to plan. Like the look on his face when the pipe comes for Augustus, or him pretending to struggle with the gate while Veruca is being abducted and opening it effortlessly when Mr. Salt has to enter.
Fun fact: Johnny Depp based his performance as Willy Wonka on the first time he met Marilyn Manson. He thought Marilyn was very strange, even though he was somebody lots of young people looked up to at the time, and he tried to convey that type of demeanor/persona through Wonka.
I heard he based his Wonka off of either 50's kids show hosts or game show hosts.
I heard he based it on what George W. Bush would act like if he was high.
He acts like Michael Jackson
@@jimreily7538 a lot of people think this, but Johnny has said that he wasn't trying to act like Michael Jackson and that he's surprised that people see a resemblance.
"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."
Ahahah....wh-whooo yaaah cahahlling d-hic-druuuaank...ya shhhhh...ITHEAD...uuuuuuuuuhuuuhuuhh*BARF*
Scoobydollar tf is that comment
Dregonna hmm liquor is quicker at getting you hooked and giving you an emotional staple
Is that a reference to our queen, MARINA AND THE DIAMONDS?
Every kiss you give me makes me sicker
The Jonny Depp version at least had songs from the book
Mmmm chicken Ilike chicken Song that no one will remember.
Mmmm chicken. We like remake. He don't
the 2005 version was more faithful to the novel. As a matter of fact,Daul hated the 1971 adaption when it was released
@@systemshocker2875 Bingo
And they all sucked.
“Where is fancy bread? In the heart or the head?” Gene wilder. RIP. You will be be forever remembered.
Did you just call somone a brat
For being a saint
Really
John Doe
Yup
It's called a Gary Stu
Bijuu Tamer
Technically, that’s for a flawless character that can do anything
I would rather be interested in an actual human child than a tack-on jesus
John Doe FEW! I'm not the only one
I freaking love how Johnny Depp played Wonka. I definitely don't think this was his bad performance. He made the movie. So weird. Good morning starshine. The Earth says hello
One of the best quotes
@@ghost-dh6sb In case you didn't know, the screenwriter didn't come up with that. He took it from "Hair", a musical about hippies during the Vietnam War, who are all against it because they're all about peace and love - and creativity, of course, starting by declaring "This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius". The song Wonka quotes is, of course, "Good Morning Starshine".
"You twinkle above us, we twinkle below."
I dont care what nobody says, I love Depp. Full of imagination, yet he had q darker side to him much like Wilder, whom I do prefer, but Depp’s Wonka was much deeper. The reason he wanted to teach the parents a lesson about parenting was because of his own trauma.
SigardProductions exactly me too
Lilia Price No joke, everytime bad stuff happened to the kids, there would be a semi-close up of Wonka staring at them accompanied by an unsetteling musical que. I am not joking, just watch the movie its there.
I actually grew up with the Tim burton remake
Same here and I love it. I did watch the original and wasn’t really a fan. But if other people like it that’s okay
I did too, actually
I grew up with both
I did too, and I prefer it as well. I do like the original but since i grew up with Tim Burton's version, I think that's why I like it more
TheHolyLordsOfDrPepper same
*laughs in 'someone clearly never read the book'*
fun fact: in the original version, Dahl, the writer of the book, had pretty much no say in the production and didn't like the original. So when Tim burton picked it up he was hesitant about it until he brought up the design of the Buckets' house. They also gave Dahl more of a say in the new version, so everything in it is approved by the original writer of the book. Also, the songs in the new version were taken straight from the book.
Source: my own experience reading the book and joshscorcher
I think you should have specified Felicity's name.
You are really cool!!! I glad to know, somebody read the book and know the story of Burton's adaptation!!! Yes, everything you told is true!!!
@@nastjafisunova7258 Except omitting first names. Should have specified Roald first, then Felicity second.
How could it have been approved by the original author when the author passed away in 1990 and the remake came out in 2005?
@@heyimagirl329 My responses touched upon this.
I don't personally think the moral of the new movie was just "Don't always act like a kid". When I watched it when I was younger I felt the moral leaned more towards a "No matter what happens, your family is always (or at least SHOULD always) be there for you." kind of vibe. Charlie was constantly putting his family first, wanting to sell the golden ticket to bring in money for his family, willing to give up his place in the factory because his family couldn't come... and in the end his support of his family and their support back is what opened up Wonka's eyes to finally make peace with his father and be happy. Wonka's unstable, childish attitude and obsessions stemmed from his past issues with his father and being alone (I do think they could have done a lot better with his backstory scene though, it was pretty unbelievable for his dad to LITERALLY MOVE HIS ENTIRE FUCKING HOUSE when he has a kid living there). It feels more like the moral was more family driven. Of course, that's just an opinion as well.
There is a lot of morals, not just one.
But... but... I liked the 2005 one as much as the original. None of them are superior to the other in my eyes. Then again I did watch the new one as a child and only watched the original for the first time recently so that could've played a factor.
Thrall Fan finally! a healthy outlook!
Miyla Crystal any outlook is okay. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Slightly Insane finally random UA-cam commenters who don’t immediately get pissed off about someone else’s opinion
6:50 in The book Charlie is a saint
That's my problem with this video is he doesn't realize that the new one was made to be more faithful to the book and complains about things that the movie took from the book
red guy 94 Just because it’s more faithful, doesn’t make it a better film. Just a better adaptation.
@@terrortower666I was not saying it was better because it was more accurate to the book I'm saying That's why it was made the way it was and also I feel like he's bringing to much nostalgia and that's why he said the old one is much better than the new one when I feel both are good in there own way
@@terrortower666 I see you took a page from Mr. Noble.
I'd say this was a shortcoming of both versions of the story the film could have elaborated on but didn't. And Highmore makes it work.
It's kind of cheating to put Charlie in the supporting charter role. The actual supports in the new one beat the old by a longshot. The old ones have little screentime and lines, disappear abruptly, and are never given a resolution or a proper sendoff.
I don't think Depp's Wonka is bad and he could have been perfect under the right direction, but Wilder's Wonka is one of my favorite performances ever. Nothing can top it. God help Timothée Chalamet.
I wish copyright wasn't a thing so I could hear the pure imagination soundtrack in the background
Just use your imagination! LOL
Seriously though, I ended up just singing the tune every time the music cut off in the video. Made the viewing experience MUCH better!
Rip. Gene wilder. He will be missed ;_;
Charles Hays by everyone
This video makes me so sorry that Gene Wilder is no longer with us (SOB!!).
Amelia Beckley thank god I realised what you wrote as SOB can mean a whole 'nother thing
Charles Hays Oh yeah. . . forgot about that. Well, at least he didn't die of drugs.
Charles Hays exactly, R.I.P.
Didn't Tim Burton's version more follow the book? Well despite that I love both movies.
it did follow the book more
+Phandom Trash it did
the johnny depp version followed the book a ton. a majority of the lines and actions were the same, even the oompa loompa songs were almost exact only given a few add ins. I use to love both movies but as soon as i read the book the johnny depp version was the one that stood out the most.
I love land of to imagination song
Uhhhh willy wonka doesnt have a fucking dad who was a dentist lmao. The johnny depp version is all fucked up. The original is way different from the book, they are both changed considerably but follow extremely closely. Who cares about following the books anyway when the book sequel was so fucking terrible and different, if they had made a sequel to chocolate factory following the 2nd book glass elevator everyone would fucking hate it because it is pure shit
I could imagine Jim Carrey playing Willy Wonka
I think they originally wanted MIchael Jackson!
@@SDJ992-q9t and now we know why he wasnt picked.
MJ was good on The Wiz
Yes, I said he was good
If they had MJ before he turned into a demon become Willy Wonka, I wouldn’t mind that
I could also see Steve Martin or Robin Williams as Wonka
@@theamazingandtalentedblake8296 maybe if it was made in the 80’s or 90’s they would’ve done it
Here's a funny story:
When I was in third grade, the new movie had just come out on DVD. They showed it in class so we could understand the book better. I was actually scared of the Oompa Loompas. When I got home that same Friday, my dad and I talked about the story a little, and he said I had to watch the better version. We went to Blockbuster in the evening, I got one of those old Wonka Bars (which is probably still the best chocolate I've ever had) and we watched the original. We laughed, and I understood the morals much better. I really felt the magic from Gene Wilder. Whenever I would go back to Blockbuster after that, I'd buy a Wonka Bar and smile at whoever was at the register. Eventually, both Wonka Bars and Blockbusters would soon cease to exist. I still smile remembering that they were part of my childhood, though.
what do you mean by old wonka bars are they expired?
oh you said there were both bar version sorry for the stupidity
@@aljaberhk Nestle used to sell real Wonka Bars until they got discontinued
Am I the only one who, after the first time the music was muted from the video (I assume for copyright reasons), briefly thought there was something wrong with the computer or headphones, so proceeded to check both and have nothing be wrong before the audio returns and put the pieces together?
Nope
People need to understand that THESE ARE ADAPTATIONS! They're going to take creative liberties, they're not all going to please the author, but they can still be both good! The Charlie movie had great visuals and the story followed closer to the book. The Willy version had memorable songs and Gene Wilder whose performance, in my opinion, is timeless. But both still manage to be fun and eccentric movies. Both great, different, but great.
I actually grew up watching the second movie. Next to The Secret Garden, it was my all-time favorite.
+Appringle
To each its own. I just wish fans didn't have to be so bitterly competitive about which movie is better. If Willy Wonka had more just two adaptations, such as how Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, and Alice in Wonderland have had multiple adaptations, people would be more open-minded.
Correct my friend, well said.
I would disagree that the story in Charlie was closer to the book. The backstory on Willy Wonka and his strained relationship with his dad changes the focus of the story ENTIRELY.
gnc623
I didn't like that addition either.
I believe Dahl himself despised the 70s one, and his wife said that he would enjoy the 2005 one. They're both great in my opinion, but I just prefer the new one. Maybe it's because I grew up with it.
Yeah Dahl hated the original because he thought Wilder’s Wonka was too gay. I think Dahl would of appreciated the reboot, I don’t think he would of been pleased with the cast of Johnny Depp, but I think he wouldn’t mind with his character. Unlike the original we got to know who Wonka was, he had a purpose. (Yes that’s very controversial)
@@skinner219 How was Wilder’s Wonka “too gay?”
@@jesusrox4u "Too gay" as in "too happy/cheerful", not homosexual hahaha.
@@EnzoMPonce13 That makes sense. My bad.
He was also really pissed how in the book, Charlie was black. Racial inequality was something he wanted a spotlight on when it was a poor minority against a bunch of rich white kids.
"It's polluted!" "It's chocolate!" "NO IT’S NOT😀
I read that as 12:27 came
Ironically I had just seen the Film Theorists' clip where they said it really _was_ made of chocolate, and that it "smelled terrible and spoiled quickly." Not really arguing the point, though; it looks like runny chocolate milk more than melted chocolate, which is what I would have thought.
Jakethedog3275
I actually think the original cast proved that it was actual dirty water
The modern Willy Wonka’s laugh reminds me of Tommy Weisau.
"Hahahaha. Good story Charlie."
"How's your sex life, Wonka", "I didn't turn her into a blueberry I did naughtttttttt"
"You're tearing me apart Charlie!"
Wonka in the new one is so much more awkward. And I love him for it. Personally it's so much more wackier and crazier and more accurate to the book. It shows Wonka's backstory which was very nice, was even more darker and just more enjoyable and funnier.
Actually Gene Wilder's Wonka is more accurate to the book.
That and what can you expect from a guy who hasn't interacted with anyone for roughly a decade
@@lydia8526 Actually, if you didn’t know, it was revealed that Roald Dahl didn’t enjoy the 1971 adaptation! He tolerated the film but didn’t actually enjoy it due to the many changes made to that adaptation. If you compare, it’s the 2005 adaptation that is more like the book and extra evidence showing this is the fact that Felicity Dahl, Rohald Dahl’s wife before he passed away, helped to produce the 2005 movie and said herself that the 2005 version plays better to the book that the 1971 version.
@@noneedforknees That doesn't mean Depp did a more accurate depiction of Wonka.
@AbdulAzeem Shaikh This is a really ridiculous argument I see a ton of people make. We don't know exactly what would have made him like the old movie and we don't know he would have liked the new one seeing as he died before it released, lol. For all we know he would have disliked it even more.
I love how all of his old countdowns and old vs news are dead silent in between thanks to copyright claims
13:42 SARUMAN IS WILLY WONKA'S DAD AAAAAAAAA
+Gabriel Barsch /Count Dooku
And Dracula
He also plays Count Dooku in Star Wars
Yep no wonder Willy Wonka has a clear glass elevator that can fly with star wars technology.
You fool! I've been trained your Jedi arts by Willy Wonka's FATHER! **whips out four lightsabers**
The original cast of the original movie actually revealed that the "chocolate river" was actually really dirty water.
damn, i always thought it was chocolate, chilhood ruined
Evelyn Turner gross
makela w sorry yeah you're right.
Ugh... guess you gotta cut costs somehow
Evelyn Turner it looked like it LMFAO
As said by Cinema Sins: THE BOOKS DO NOT FUCKING MATTER. I used to only like the 2005 version, but then I saw the 1971 version and gained a new appreciation for the original. Of course, I had read the novel by Roald Dahl before I saw either one. Both movies stray away a little from the book anyway, but that's what pretty much all movies based off books do. I like both versions and like aspects from both of them.
Say it with me: THE CHARLIE VERSION IS NOT A REMAKE!
BINGO (I found this out 3 weeks ago so)
So have I!
It's a second adaptaion to the book!
I completely agree with you.
@@codymojoe5935Yeah, but if it’s already kind of the same story that pretty much takes a lot of elements of the original film, and at least I haven’t heard anybody say either was that faithful to the original book in pretty much all the same places, I think it’s safe to say one movie is more responsible for one existing than the book it was based upon.
thank you. I like both but it's a re-imagining of the story, not a copy of Willy Wonka movie. Wish Doug would get past that. But I love his take on the differences 🙂
Anyone else come back here after Gene Wilder died?
yes sir
ya duh
yes
I miss you more than Gene.
i did
Nothing could ever hold a candle to Gene Wilder's performance EVER!!!
William Worth You’re right, I dropped the candle
*DOUGLAS HODGE*
16:42
It’s funny how the theme from Doug plays. Ironically, the Critic’s name is Doug.
Anakin SkyWalker That’s why he’s so mad XD
Johnny Depp's version actually makes sense for a reclusive shut-in who's been isolated from people for 15 years. Which is Wonka from the book.
it's like that in 1971 too
Honestly I can't stand this opinion and it is parroted everywhere. If you don't think Gene was accurately representing the social awkwardness of years of isolation already, I shudder to think what sort of people you spend time around in general.
Depp is just a cartoon.
Alex Morreale I take it you’ve never met introverts? Depp’s Wonka is definitely what happens when one stays away from society
@@luxthewriter No he's a ridiculous caricature of what happens when someone stays away from society. Nobody actually acts that way without having some kind of condition underlying.
The way the first Wonka acts definitely depicts this in a much more realistic way.
If you don't think so you just aren't remembering the first movie properly as the Wonka in it is a socially stunted nightmare who lies and tells half truths constantly, is snarky and sarcastic about serious matters, and pretty much immediately gives up on the kids being anything but crap and then goes right along with them destroying themselves. He is whimsical and fantastic too of course, but he is also largely selfish and uncaring outside of the one person who has proved to be totally pure of heart at the very end of the movie.
I haven't even said the Depp Wonka is particularly bad it's just so obviously a caricature and if you are going to say the Gene Wonka isn't acting like a socially stunted shut-in you need to re-watch that first movie lol. My whole point is I feel like none of you have actually met someone like this. I have.
An introvert and someone who is completely socially backwards as a result of seclusion are not the same thing at all. Wonka may be both but the depiction Depp gives is not one of an "introvert" it's one of someone on a spectrum.
@AbdulAzeem Shaikh an opinion can be wrong.
I love both of them, but credit where credit is due; the 2005 version Oompa Loompa songs has lyrics that are from the original source material.
It doesn't need to be a carbon copy of the book
tenko.mp4 As long as you can tell the director understands the essence of the source material, it’s okay to take some creative liberties
@@High_Priest_Jonko To be fair, it's not a carbon copy, they were just more faithful. Also, the lyrics were pieced together from the book not taken fully as is. All the lyrics Danny used were from the books, but not all the lyrics from the books were used. More creativity than "Oompa loompa doo ba dee do"
littleboo2002 Touché. I wasn’t criticizing the new version, just people who complain when the movie diverges from the book
@@High_Priest_Jonko That's fair. But I guess no one is every happy. It's always too close or not close enough.
U can't top the original.
And that's why the book was the best!
OHHHHHHHHHH
Which is a bit ironic considering Burton's film was closer to the book
+Lightning Lynx The book was actually a lot darker than the Tim Burton movie though. There was even a lost chapter where two people actually die by falling into a fudge cutter. In fact, the fudge mountain from the movie came from that chapter. Even the finished book was a lot more mean-spirited than either of the movies.
generalcoon47 Have you read any of Dahl's books? There is no moral grey, everyone is either a pure-hearted angel or the spawn of Satan. And trust me, as a guy who had 80% of his children's books on my bookshelf I should know
Ben Wasserman
Yeah, and I personally don't think that was a great way to write characters. His characters were always very unrealistically good or evil. That's why I didn't like Matilda, pretty much for the same reason Doug didn't. She was way too nice and her parents were way too evil. Like Doug pointed out, Charlie in the first movie was good but he still had greedy moments. It just makes it more interesting and realistic, in my opinion. Kind of like Wonka's dad at the end of the movie. You can clearly tell he's not a Dahl character because he starts out as evil and nasty as heck but you clearly see at the end, he's not completely evil at heart.
Nothing is wrong with Grampa Joe singing! Golden Ticket is such a happy and fun song
Grandpa Joe is the Antichrist, and I have issues with the wrinkly testicle breathing (let alone singing)
@@seraphimboys3699 Good lord, I may or may not have laughed way too hard at this comment
yea i dont know why he aded the cupacke on the of grandpa joe thats rude
I think both films are equally good. I grew up with Mel Stuart's version, but I recently found Tim burton's version a couple years ago. I instantly loved Tim burton's version. the casting was great and the characters were more fleshed out, and it was more faithful to the book. at the same time, the original Stuart Willy Wonka was a charming, nostalgic film with a more charming feel.
I don't know wh, but as a kid, I truly believed that the original willy wonka actually happerend in real life. There is something about the original one that seems to be more realsitic than the remake that is just fantasy. But I will admit, I both love them and grew up watching them. If they both made me smile in my childhood, then they are both winners. :)
Oh please, we all know that the best Wonka is the one from the Tom & Jerry/Willy Wonka cartoon.
So true
Pierre Begley *insert Tuffy screaming like a maniac*
Pierre Begley Not even. Willy Wonka from Epic Movie.
D0nutLord there's no earthly way of knowing...
ARE THE FIRES OF HELL A GLOWING
I think the two are a lot more tied than you make them out to be... I love Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and I think its a lot better than you give it credit for. Also, you repeat a couple times that Charlie is the heart of the story, but he's lumped in with the supporting cast? Charlie should have been his own category. Regardless, its still a good video.
*noticed that too*
Joe Repp
Agreed
they are not even close.
@@Fureiji88 How so?
the fact that you gave the original the point for the story, considering how much closer Burton was to the book, considering Dahl was removed from the making of the original due to so many changes were being made that he did not like??
not to mention his wife stood close as Burton made his version?
when she found out he was making the Bucket house based off of Dahl's writing shed (as he intended it in the book), she let Burton take control and trusted him.
she even went as far as to say she wished her husband lived long enough to see this version once it was completed.
in the book Wonka was more socially awkward and lost connection of human interaction.
in the book, Charlie is SUPPOSE to be a pure hearted kid. the "Jesus" reference of yours is more or less the fact that Charlie is a boy who understands how hard life is for his family and they are all they have.
Burton even TOOK LYRICS OF THE OOMPA LOOMPA SONGS AND PUT THEM IN HIS VERSION.
due to the amount of similarities to the book, i dont care how much you hate Depp as Wonka, how much you hate Freddie Highmore as Charlie. Burton's version should of gotten that story point.
the story in the 1971 film is better, it’s has better pacing, is told with more clarity and simplicity, and gives a character arc to charlie, who’s a cardboard cutout in the book and burton film. accuracy to the source material doesn’t make a better film.
@@rhysspeight7142 personally I found the pacing in the 70s adaptation of the book rather boring.
Anyone ever taught you to respect people's prefrences?
@@rroobnz its not a matter of preference, its factual.
@@Peri_Cat No.
I think I like the new movie better since it is closer to the book.
Plus, the modern movie shows the psycho-ness of Wonka....
Joel G. J I would like the new one more if it was closer like cut out Willy Wonka backstory and I would like the movie
Yosef Strimling but I didn't think it was detracting from the story. It makes the story somewhat equivalent to the settings obscure visual elements.
But hte backstory for Wonka wasn't really needed. You could have done the same things without ever needing to explain why. When you explain why it removes the mystery about the character, and how they are psycho. Instead of seeing a man who has questionable mentality I just see a pathetic child who chose to never grow up because he has daddy issues. I feel sorry for him but I also want to slap him and tell him to get the fuck over it and grow up ya little ninny brat than I fear his mental state. When you look at Gene he has that same wit and guile to him as well as giddyness. He knows reprocussions he knows what it means to make mistakes and he always appears to be on top of things; making you wonder if he is planning on actually harming the children or if he is purposefully trying to purposefully put them in scenarios he knows they will fail in. The best part of a psychotic persona is that you NEVER know what they are going to do, and the most intimidating and interesting ones are the ones who are intelligent to match. In Charlie - you see a child adult. In Wonka - you see a man bordering on the lines of sanity never knowing which way he is going to tilt at any moment.
Blair Bart you sound like an obvious troll. Just because Dahl said he hated the original doesn't mean Depp's is better. He didn't LIVE long enough to see Burtin's version and to rate it; so to use the author's criticism on one film without having him able to do the other is almost null void. Because you never know what he would have said. Also, no...Burtin's version is NOT closer to the book. I read the book, they both divert in equal parts; and that is the point of an interpretation. It isn't meant to be as close to the book as possible, otherwise just copy the book out right, they make their own creative decisions based on what their producers want - editing teams - script writers - things are forced to change. So to use the excuse of "it's closer to the book" is also just as invalid in terms of breaking down the characters themselves. Did you know Wanka originally knew who the winner would be all along because he gave Charley the winning ticket that remained? Depp has absolutley no clue or care who won. Gene knew who would win all along but had to give Charlie an exclusive test. Ever notice why he didn't just turn on charlie and his grandpa for the fizzy lifting drink they "sabatoged"? He is even standing in silence as if waiting for them when they come around the corner. He knew. That is closer than Depp who is just "Tralalalalalalalala, oh, you won, neat.....I think."
it's really not.
There’s no earthly way of knowing
Which direction we are going
Which way the rivers flowing
Is it raining is it snowing
Is a hurricane a blowing
Not a speck of light is showing so the danger must be growing
Are the fires of hell a glowing, is the grizzly reaper mowing
YES
and they’re certainly not showing
ANY SINGS THAT THEY ARE SLOWING!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn't hate the Johnny Depp one, but Gene Wilder was so iconic, and perfect, you just cannot top it. I must say that the Charlie version is much closer to the book, but the ends of both films were not true to the book.
i disagree that it's closer to the book and i grew up with the book
@@EmmaCRBsnewstuff I grew up with the book too, and at the end of the book they took off in the great glass elevator, and picked up Charlies family, and the end alluded to the next book. Charlie and the great glass elevator.
just because the gene wilder one is iconic doesn’t mean it’s perfect and better then the johnny depp one
@@miichiixoxo That is a matter of taste, and maybe another reason some people prefer the Gene Wilder one is that we grew up with that. I would not fault anyone for liking the Johnny Depp one more, but you are not going to win everyone over when it is such an iconic character.
Nostalgia Critic: That ending you did which was refferenced from Daffy Duck's Duck Amuck, Priceless.
9:27 - I think you've got those two reversed... 60's disco and 70's hippie?
I know right?
What’s funny is that I just finished watching the the therorizer as he talk about both these movies and strang enough, the Johnny Deppt movie is more accurate to the book
Jalen Gaskin of course it is Tim Burton made it and Johnny Depp was an actor in that already makes it sound great plus the books are almost always better comparing Willy Wonka to Charlie is like comparing the new IT to the old one.
which it's not
When I want to watch it for the story, I watch the wonka version.
When I want to watch it for the creepy random bullshit, I watch the Charlie version.
*the Charlie version deeply disturbed me when I was younger. Now I just am Mildly creeped out.*
Shadowedmecha you got the two movies mixed up there boi...
its the other way around for me xD
Shadowedmecha I remember seeing the squirrel scene when I was really young. I loved it
Two types of people
The author of the origional book - Roald Dahl - hated everything about the 1971st movie. He said, that creators understand nothing from his book and did it completely wrong. His family approved Tim Burton as a director when they got to know, that his ideas were completely in line with Roald's vision.
The problem I have with the 1971 version is that it is just a commercial for a chocolate brand that is barely based on the books. It's actually the reason that Roald Dahl didn't want another Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaptation because he thought it was SO BAD and so far from the original book that it was not even comparable. The 2000's version however is an almost perfect adaptation of the book with the characters acting so much closer to how they did in the books. This is also the reason my favourite Wonka is Depp's Wonka, as he acts as if he has been away in a factory for 10-15 years. Obviously, he wouldn't be charming to people, he hasn't interacted with anyone besides Oompa Loompas in years!
The music is another example of what the Tim Burton film did better as each song fits the character it's about and the lyrics are based on Dahl's actual poems from the books. They are their own songs and not just the same words with one line changed each time. While the original songs may be 'classics', that often clouds people's view of this entire film as people believe that old = good when in reality, Wonka had so many problems including plot holes, an incredibly low budget, and the fact that it was literally JUST MADE TO ADVERTISE A CHOCOLATE BRAND. While it may be an iconic film now, the only reason it's a classic and not some old-forgotten film is because it was shown on TV as filler because it failed at the box office so was cheap to play.
In conclusion, I feel that nostalgia does cloud people's judgement, INCLUDING this video which is supposed to critique films DESPITE nostalgia, not using 'but it's a classic' as an excuse as to why something is 'good'.
But Wonka would at least know how too have some charisma of his own. Then what would be the point of inviting people into your factory & you don’t even know how too connect with them? & wouldn’t Wonka be at the very least social enough too know how to convey & carry himself with confidence?
Hence why Wilders version is just the more better. He didn’t need a tragic backstory, he was a mysterious, sarcastic madman. You didn’t know what he could do next.
He allowed for the action & fun too speak for itself & stood quite.
Gene had internal rage, humor, sadness, disappointment, regret, passion.
& the Christopher Lee subplot that wasn’t in the book at all is proof that Burton didn’t understand the characterization of Wonka.
Dude.. Don’t be hatin’ on Freddie Highmore..
Yep, he’s The Good Doctor!