For several reasons, this is the superior version: - More book accurate - Better ending - More interesting characterisation (the original characters were really basic and flat) - Mr Bucket exists - Better grandparents (other 3 in the original might as well not have been in the movie) - Excellent cinematography (compared to the dull execution of the first movie) - Superb sets - Varied and catchy music (not the same copy-paste template) - Wonka’s backstory - Dahl hated the original movie (even said it was too sappy and saccharine) - More attention to detail One of the most FRUSTRATING criticisms is that it's not like the original movie. The source material is NOT the first movie, it's the book, which the 2005 movie did more justice to. Seems like nostalgia and elitism is the only reason people like the first movie, even it it wasn't very well-received at the time. I don't care if it's a cLaSsiC, there's no way it's the better movie. I want to be as respectful as possible, but this has to be worst review of this movie I've ever seen. You just have a hate-boner for it, it didn't kill the franchise, and it was clearly trying to write the wrongs of the first movie. You just just sound like an angry, whiny child who didn't get what they want throughout most of this. Media Mementos, Bobsheaux, and joshscorcher all do great justice to this movie with their reviews
I can't judge the og movie to hard cause looking back the kids and parents were a little bland, but that makes me commend this movie more cause they embellished those characters I 100% agree with your thoughts -Except wonkas back story-
Personally im not a fan of the 2005 version, but i do atleast like these thing about it. 1: the chocolate river looks like real chocolate, i always thought the 71 films version kinda looked red water more than chocolate 2: music, its weird, zainy and wacky but i like it 3: the design of the wonka bar, idk what it in but. I just like it, And thats all, 2005 isnt my fav by any means but i give it a watch every once in a while
If you look at the concept art you can see that he originally was gonna look a lot more like the book but they thought he looked too much like how he did as Jack sparrow. It’s kinda interesting. Although I agree with all of your points.
If we ever harness the ability to dimension hop, we need to travel to all the alternate dimensions to see what it would’ve been like had this movie had a different Wonka. What I would give to see Robin Williams, John Cleese or Leslie Nielsen as Willy Wonka…
I actually enjoy the 2005 movie a lot more than the '71 one because of how obnoxious the 4 kids are and how Charlie's grandparents are given personalities that I find very endearing, especially grumpy grandpa George. My problem with all movies (including the 2023 one) is always with how they depict our man, our lord, our saviour Mr Wonka. Both Wilder and Depp do a good job at being "a" character, sometimes even a great one, but neither of them is "the" character from the book. Yes, they say his lines but the delivery and context makes them sound either too sinister or awkward when in the book they're clearly intended to be spoken and perceived in a different way, usually witty, dismissive or purely nonsensical. I am not saying that that specific tone is easy to replicate and translate into live action, hence why I do think both actors did a good job in shaping their own version of the character. As others pointed out, the most book-accurate Wonka was portrayed in the West End London production of the musical by Douglas Hodge (all subsequent performers and stagings of the show are VERY different and almost universally considered inferior, as it usually is when a show with a vision gets watered down and the budget gets cut. The Broadway version is an effin crime, replacing original songs with mediocre tunes from the 71 movie just because americans want the same old thing over and over). Douglas even got a letter from Dahl's widow thanking him for giving a performance her husband would’ve approved of. Even in the London musical Wonka is slightly changed, giving him more of an artistic, sometimes melancholic side but I honesty prefer that to whatever Wilder and Depp did. I feel like the changes in the musical actually align very well with glossed over lines from the first book such as "I insist upon my rooms being beautiful! I can’t abide ugliness in factories." Which to me always gave wonka this aesthete and poet-like vibe since he wants to create beauty in what is usually a dreary and cold industrial environment. There is also a quiet scene from The Great Glass Elevator in which he leaves the adults to their heated arguing and steps aside, sighing to himself as he begrudgingly admits that even good people have a hard time not falling prey to greed. Original West End Wonka is way too good and we don't deserve him.
While I can respect your opinion on the movie. I feel like you don't know the meaning of adaptation. According to google an adaptation is the act of changing something or changing your behaviour to make it suitable for a new purpose or situation. So by this meaning not everything has to be a 1 to 1 adaptation of the book things has to be change to better suit the movie like in gene wilder film they had to change the nut room from golden eggs because cgi didn't exist back then. Sure not all changes work but you have to at least understand some of the changes that were made and why they had to do it, your critique comes off really nit picky critsizing every single thing from both films you could probably be the reancartion of roald dahl himself as I heard he was a perfectionist.
I also think that blaming the 2005 film for ruining the candy company and making the Swedish Cartoon lost media feel like a stretch, seeing how it’s the highest-grossing film adaption based on a Roald Dahl novel. Also of course they would use the 2005 movie to advertise the candy company and the other way around, they’re based on the same book (and also wouldn’t exist without the 1971 movie) and are part of the Wonka brand.
Personally, I prefer this movie over the 1971 film. That version has its charm, but it just looks so cheap and was made with no love or passion other than making it a cheap cashgrab to sell a failed chocolate brand. They pretty much made the movie behind Dahl's back and overall the whole production was just scummy. The 2005 film actually had love and care put into it by Dahl's family and Tim Burton. And the whole movie just is more enjoyable for me. The Oompa Loompa songs are far superior to any piece of music from the original (outside of Pure Imagination) because they actually had effort put into them instead of just using the same copy-paste template that the Oompa Loompa songs had in the 1971 version.
Joseph not to sound rude but you're watching the wrong Musical Wonka you should watch the OG Musical Wonka back in 2013 that was in the West End UK, this version of Wonka is perfect from the bottom to the top! Please give it a watch man, everyone in the Wonka community thinks this is the BEST musical adaptation of CATCF.
in addition. while you call the great glass elevator book a stupid sequel. which it is. it was written AFTER the wilder film and honestly thinking about it now. it genuinely feels like dahl trying to correct for the film. as you said, wonka would let the punishments continue to teach a lesson, but that there was a sense of care. the book especially calls out violet's scene, with the magic medicine. charlie mentions his apprehension because of the dinner gum he "gave" violet. Wonka mentions he didnt give, she snatched it up, that he tried his damndest to get her to spit it out, shouting stop no. even chocolate factory mentions he was wringing his hands. like literally charlie literally wins by default
42:42 Funny thing, there exists B-roll footage of Veruca asking for an Oompa Loompa, but it was cut from the final film: ua-cam.com/video/VbRBESQTkJ4/v-deo.html
In terms of Broadway Wonka, it was heavily altered from the original West End (London) version, adding many elements from both significant film adaptations (the only song from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory the West End version included was pure imagination and that was only at the end). Here is a link to the show ua-cam.com/video/I7t0mTrpo_w/v-deo.html&ab_channel=CatCF
Also the recent UK tour combined elements from both the West End and Broadway versions while adding its own elements like Charlie is played by a girl in some performances and the oompa loompas are robots. Unfortunately, I can't find a full production online.
Honestly as a kid. I basically worshipped this film. As a person in his later 20s I accept that it’s not the best, but it is rather entertaining. It’s okay in the adaptation department but the backstory stuff crowbarred in has caused a Mandela effect of some sort about Wonkas father.
I’ve seen the 2005 version a few times, but I didn’t enjoy it. It has the pros of being a more faithful adaptation (but I think it harms the film more than helps it) but little more. Christopher Lee gave a good performance and Geoffrey Holder does some decent narration, but other than that it lacks the charm and timelessness that the 1971 one had.
I think the Tim Burton version lacks a certain magic that the Roald Dahl book and even the 1971 version had. As an adaptation it’s better than the 1971 version but I still think as a film the 1971 Mel Stuart version is better even though it has dated effects and technology but it has a certain magic that Tim Burton’s version lacks
Fr. The 2005 version is just too dark and edgy to fit a book that's literally based on a magical chocolate factory,just because of the "emo,edgy=💸📈 whimsical,pretty=🏚️📉" standards of the 2000's.
I like the 2005 movie, Charlie and the chocolate factory could you imagine if we got a movie of Charlie and chocolate factory where we have all the Oompa-Loompas being played by Jim Carrey and Willy Wonka was played by Jeff Goldblum And. Charlie bucket. Was played by. Alex D Linz so do you think this sounds cool if this movie came out before 2005
For several reasons, this is the superior version:
- More book accurate
- Better ending
- More interesting characterisation (the original characters were really basic and flat)
- Mr Bucket exists
- Better grandparents (other 3 in the original might as well not have been in the movie)
- Excellent cinematography (compared to the dull execution of the first movie)
- Superb sets
- Varied and catchy music (not the same copy-paste template)
- Wonka’s backstory
- Dahl hated the original movie (even said it was too sappy and saccharine)
- More attention to detail
One of the most FRUSTRATING criticisms is that it's not like the original movie. The source material is NOT the first movie, it's the book, which the 2005 movie did more justice to. Seems like nostalgia and elitism is the only reason people like the first movie, even it it wasn't very well-received at the time. I don't care if it's a cLaSsiC, there's no way it's the better movie. I want to be as respectful as possible, but this has to be worst review of this movie I've ever seen. You just have a hate-boner for it, it didn't kill the franchise, and it was clearly trying to write the wrongs of the first movie. You just just sound like an angry, whiny child who didn't get what they want throughout most of this. Media Mementos, Bobsheaux, and joshscorcher all do great justice to this movie with their reviews
I can't judge the og movie to hard cause looking back the kids and parents were a little bland, but that makes me commend this movie more cause they embellished those characters
I 100% agree with your thoughts
-Except wonkas back story-
Personally im not a fan of the 2005 version, but i do atleast like these thing about it.
1: the chocolate river looks like real chocolate, i always thought the 71 films version kinda looked red water more than chocolate
2: music, its weird, zainy and wacky but i like it
3: the design of the wonka bar, idk what it in but. I just like it,
And thats all, 2005 isnt my fav by any means but i give it a watch every once in a while
If you look at the concept art you can see that he originally was gonna look a lot more like the book but they thought he looked too much like how he did as Jack sparrow. It’s kinda interesting. Although I agree with all of your points.
If we ever harness the ability to dimension hop, we need to travel to all the alternate dimensions to see what it would’ve been like had this movie had a different Wonka. What I would give to see Robin Williams, John Cleese or Leslie Nielsen as Willy Wonka…
I actually enjoy the 2005 movie a lot more than the '71 one because of how obnoxious the 4 kids are and how Charlie's grandparents are given personalities that I find very endearing, especially grumpy grandpa George. My problem with all movies (including the 2023 one) is always with how they depict our man, our lord, our saviour Mr Wonka. Both Wilder and Depp do a good job at being "a" character, sometimes even a great one, but neither of them is "the" character from the book. Yes, they say his lines but the delivery and context makes them sound either too sinister or awkward when in the book they're clearly intended to be spoken and perceived in a different way, usually witty, dismissive or purely nonsensical. I am not saying that that specific tone is easy to replicate and translate into live action, hence why I do think both actors did a good job in shaping their own version of the character.
As others pointed out, the most book-accurate Wonka was portrayed in the West End London production of the musical by Douglas Hodge (all subsequent performers and stagings of the show are VERY different and almost universally considered inferior, as it usually is when a show with a vision gets watered down and the budget gets cut. The Broadway version is an effin crime, replacing original songs with mediocre tunes from the 71 movie just because americans want the same old thing over and over). Douglas even got a letter from Dahl's widow thanking him for giving a performance her husband would’ve approved of.
Even in the London musical Wonka is slightly changed, giving him more of an artistic, sometimes melancholic side but I honesty prefer that to whatever Wilder and Depp did. I feel like the changes in the musical actually align very well with glossed over lines from the first book such as "I insist upon my rooms being beautiful! I can’t abide ugliness in factories." Which to me always gave wonka this aesthete and poet-like vibe since he wants to create beauty in what is usually a dreary and cold industrial environment. There is also a quiet scene from The Great Glass Elevator in which he leaves the adults to their heated arguing and steps aside, sighing to himself as he begrudgingly admits that even good people have a hard time not falling prey to greed.
Original West End Wonka is way too good and we don't deserve him.
While I can respect your opinion on the movie. I feel like you don't know the meaning of adaptation. According to google an adaptation is the act of changing something or changing your behaviour to make it suitable for a new purpose or situation. So by this meaning not everything has to be a 1 to 1 adaptation of the book things has to be change to better suit the movie like in gene wilder film they had to change the nut room from golden eggs because cgi didn't exist back then. Sure not all changes work but you have to at least understand some of the changes that were made and why they had to do it, your critique comes off really nit picky critsizing every single thing from both films you could probably be the reancartion of roald dahl himself as I heard he was a perfectionist.
yea my problem with this video is that most of the criticism is just nitpicking because the film isn’t 100% a film version of the book
I also think that blaming the 2005 film for ruining the candy company and making the Swedish Cartoon lost media feel like a stretch, seeing how it’s the highest-grossing film adaption based on a Roald Dahl novel.
Also of course they would use the 2005 movie to advertise the candy company and the other way around, they’re based on the same book (and also wouldn’t exist without the 1971 movie) and are part of the Wonka brand.
I can definitely see that, especially the parts associating with the book
Funny considering Dahl's widow said her late husband would have loved Burton's version
@@CRSB00 It’s debatable if Dahl would’ve loved it, but I’m sure he would’ve preferred it to the original.
SO HAPPY ABT THE LONG VIDEO LENGTH I WAS JUST OPENING UA-cam TO LOOK FOR SPMETHING LONG TO WATCH WHILE I DRAWWW ⭐️
Couldn't agree with you more on 2005 Wonka's attitude. That's the main reason I don't really like Depp Wonka.
Personally, I prefer this movie over the 1971 film. That version has its charm, but it just looks so cheap and was made with no love or passion other than making it a cheap cashgrab to sell a failed chocolate brand. They pretty much made the movie behind Dahl's back and overall the whole production was just scummy. The 2005 film actually had love and care put into it by Dahl's family and Tim Burton. And the whole movie just is more enjoyable for me. The Oompa Loompa songs are far superior to any piece of music from the original (outside of Pure Imagination) because they actually had effort put into them instead of just using the same copy-paste template that the Oompa Loompa songs had in the 1971 version.
Joseph not to sound rude but you're watching the wrong Musical Wonka you should watch the OG Musical Wonka back in 2013 that was in the West End UK, this version of Wonka is perfect from the bottom to the top! Please give it a watch man, everyone in the Wonka community thinks this is the BEST musical adaptation of CATCF.
in addition. while you call the great glass elevator book a stupid sequel. which it is. it was written AFTER the wilder film and honestly thinking about it now. it genuinely feels like dahl trying to correct for the film. as you said, wonka would let the punishments continue to teach a lesson, but that there was a sense of care.
the book especially calls out violet's scene, with the magic medicine. charlie mentions his apprehension because of the dinner gum he "gave" violet.
Wonka mentions he didnt give, she snatched it up, that he tried his damndest to get her to spit it out, shouting stop no. even chocolate factory mentions he was wringing his hands. like literally charlie literally wins by default
42:42 Funny thing, there exists B-roll footage of Veruca asking for an Oompa Loompa, but it was cut from the final film: ua-cam.com/video/VbRBESQTkJ4/v-deo.html
In terms of Broadway Wonka, it was heavily altered from the original West End (London) version, adding many elements from both significant film adaptations (the only song from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory the West End version included was pure imagination and that was only at the end).
Here is a link to the show
ua-cam.com/video/I7t0mTrpo_w/v-deo.html&ab_channel=CatCF
Also the recent UK tour combined elements from both the West End and Broadway versions while adding its own elements like Charlie is played by a girl in some performances and the oompa loompas are robots.
Unfortunately, I can't find a full production online.
Honestly as a kid. I basically worshipped this film. As a person in his later 20s I accept that it’s not the best, but it is rather entertaining. It’s okay in the adaptation department but the backstory stuff crowbarred in has caused a Mandela effect of some sort about Wonkas father.
As a kid I didn’t like it
@@mclovinpo i was wonka obsessed as a kid, it was my obsession for a time.
@@magicamadeyelol me too. I lived and breathed it as a kid. I love hearing that others did too cos as a kid I felt like such a weirdo for it.
I think it’s better than the original
I agree with you
To be honest I kinda wish that there was an animated fully accurate adaptation of the book
@@DannyConeHeadOnceLerNo that is so real
LITERALLY MEEEE
Noah Taylor was also in Game of Thrones and the Tomb Raider films.
I’ve seen the 2005 version a few times, but I didn’t enjoy it. It has the pros of being a more faithful adaptation (but I think it harms the film more than helps it) but little more. Christopher Lee gave a good performance and Geoffrey Holder does some decent narration, but other than that it lacks the charm and timelessness that the 1971 one had.
BAKED BEANS
The Tim Burton version would’ve been a lot better if the Backstory they gave Wonka was the one from the 2001 script
what was it?
@@TheGamingManiacDS where Willy Wonka was abandoned at birth and lived in an orphanage
Next project?
I’m actually working on a Charlie and the chocolate factory movie called oompas Believe it or not
I think the Tim Burton version lacks a certain magic that the Roald Dahl book and even the 1971 version had. As an adaptation it’s better than the 1971 version but I still think as a film the 1971 Mel Stuart version is better even though it has dated effects and technology but it has a certain magic that Tim Burton’s version lacks
Fr. The 2005 version is just too dark and edgy to fit a book that's literally based on a magical chocolate factory,just because of the "emo,edgy=💸📈 whimsical,pretty=🏚️📉" standards of the 2000's.
What did you think of Wonka (2023)? I thought it was so bad that there was nothing salvageable from it.
Johnny depp tried is best just give him a chance!
I’m pretty sure he had gave it a chance
I like the 2005 movie, Charlie and the chocolate factory could you imagine if we got a movie of Charlie and chocolate factory where we have all the Oompa-Loompas being played by Jim Carrey and Willy Wonka was played by Jeff Goldblum And. Charlie bucket. Was played by. Alex D Linz so do you think this sounds cool if this movie came out before 2005
The new Wonka movie makes this one look like Citizen Kane.
I love this movie so much
JESUS CHRIST SO MANY WILLY WONKA VIDEOS WTF
Desagree!!