BScCollateral
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 28, 2018
Elsewhere I saw someone comment that Gene Wilder's played the Satan of a candy-themed Purgatory while Johnny Depp played a weirdo.
Red Letter Media
- Thread starter CatParty
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2018
I don't think he's all that mysterious. Rather, like most adults, he grudgingly tolerates children while secretly wanting to wring their stupid, obnoxious necks.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
I mean, not that secretly.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
Yes, the visual design isn't bad and that's not for nothing because later Tim Burton movies can't even claim to have genuinely interesting visuals (at least his live action ones)
It may in fact be the last Tim Burton movie to actually have an interesting visual design because there were still a lot of practical sets, once the scales tipped in favor of CGI he just became totally blah.
And to be fair, the idea of a remake wasn't the worst one because from what I understand the original novel is very different and the remake hews closer to it, so while there's no chance it could have ever topped the original due to Gene Wilder had they had a better Wonka it could have been a worthy companion, but Depp was just obnoxious as they said.
I think he's definitely meant to be sarcastic at times, but I don't think he's that negative.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
It's funny because it is much more faithful to the original...
EXCEPT for the subplot about Wonka's father. That's totally made up.
So like how do you measure that? A movie that deviates here and there? Or a movie that's completely faithful, except for one sizable chunk of it?
(seriously asking, I'm having trouble processing this and require mathematical precision)
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
You measure by how badly it makes you want to throttle the director and/or cast, by which metric the original is cosmically better than the remake.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2014
Whenever you turn a book into a movie you'll always need to change things to work better in the new medium.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
The stuff you come across online....
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
The best comment I saw was "Only Jay doesn't look like a tranny."
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
The whole idea of giving Wonka that much of a backstory is so antithetical to the entire point of the character, he's supposed to be mysterious.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Yeah but that's only because it's impossible for Rich to be more fuckable.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2019
Strange Wilderness
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 30, 2020
Really liked that they talked about the first half of the original movie where everyone loses their minds over the Golden Ticket search and there are several comedic scenes of people dealing with it, like the scientist who spends millions of dollars to build a computer to find the remaining Golden Tickets only for the computer to tell him it's against it's programing to cheat and even when bribed with part of the lifetime supply of chocolate asks "what would a computer do with a lifetime supply of chocolate?" right before the scientist tells the computer to stick the chocolate where the sun don't shine. Even as a kid I knew that part was better than the remake where the Ticket hunt seemed like they were just going through the motions to get to the factory.
I mean Wonka could have a backstory; him being a chocolate connoisseur and amateur chef since childhood provides at least an explanation for his skills and maybe another reason for choosing a child as his heir. But the whole Daddys issues plot was too much, it made him a manchild instead of an eccentric and was a waste of Christopher Lee. Let his middle years be a mystery but you can at least say he's loved chocolate since he was a kid.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
The book does go a little bit more into, if not his complete backstory, but multiple things he did before becoming a recluse. The finding the Ooompa Loompas bit was pulled straight from the book. I feel like people who read and enjoyed the original book would be a little more forgiving of the Tim Burton attempt, since even the feel of the movie is closer to the weird Dahl coldness.
Burton and Dahl are really storytellers cut from the same cloth because Dahl wrote some pretty fucked up shit, and always comes across and kind of cold and almost cruel. Not in a bad way. But in a way that deeply disturbed me when I was a kid. I was in second grade when I read 'Boy' His autobiography of his childhood. Which is just one long tale of institutionalized paddling.
Strange Wilderness
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 30, 2020
From what i remember of the book everything from Wonka's past was a humorous story or an explanation of why things are what they are, such as the chocolate palace in India or why he closed his factory in the first place. They don't delve too deep into his character or motivations so Wonka at least remains a mysterious person deep down. I can't remember if they explored his backstory in The Great Glass Elevator, that book was all over the place with space aliens and aging potions and i only read it once.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
Jay legitimately looks like a girl that went to my middle school and it's freaking me out.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Thank you for helping me crystallize another factor that bugs me about modern movies. That they all treat the set up of the story like a chore, just "going through the motions" as you say, instead of a key, vital part of the story and an opportunity to make the audience invested in your characters.
Heck, say what you will, but I'd say part of what kept the Marvel movies going is that they generally kept this tradition (arguably some of the later movies are falling into this) of properly building up a story.
Now if you want bad examples... well I really shouldn't drag Star Wars back into this thread...
Strange Wilderness
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 30, 2020
I know exactly what you're going to say about Star Wars and 100% agree with you, Luke is a relatable human being with a real life, Anakin and Rey have the plot stummble into them and have things happen to them just because. Lets use the Spiderman movies instead.
Original Spiderman is a nice build-up between Spiderman and the Green Goblin until their fight at the parade. We get to know a bullied Peter Parker, his flaws, his kinda opportunistic nature (entering a wrestling match with superpowers and selling photos of himself to make a fast buck), his guilt at Uncle Bens death, his crush on MJ, we get a few quick shots of him busting criminals before going off to battle the Goblin in a big action sequence where we see Spiderman in all his glory saving civilians and fighting bad guys. They build up his relation with Uncle Ben and we get to know Uncle Ben a little bit and get to like him making his death all the more tragic and allowing us to share Peters pain. On the other side we get to follow Norman before the fight, we see his strained relationship with his son and the board of directors which fuels his desperation to use the super formula, he's petty where he destroys a rival corporations factory, and when he gets kicked out of his own company he goes on a rampage and kills them in revenge. His strained relationship with his son causes him to try and find a replacement in the form of Peter and Spiderman which leads to Goblins motivations for the rest of the film. The first half builds up to the second half and makes us care about these two characters and their conflict with each other.
Spiderman reboot felt like characters and scenes played out just because we had to get to them. Best example would be Uncle Ben's death where instead of Peter being angered at being cheated out of his money for irresponsibly using his superpowers at a wrestling match he's short on cash at the grocery store and lets the robber go out of spite which leads to the thief killing Ben. One builds on the themes of personal responsibility, one is just things happen because the plot demands it and wants to get to Spiderman fighting a giant lizard monster.
Original Spiderman is a nice build-up between Spiderman and the Green Goblin until their fight at the parade. We get to know a bullied Peter Parker, his flaws, his kinda opportunistic nature (entering a wrestling match with superpowers and selling photos of himself to make a fast buck), his guilt at Uncle Bens death, his crush on MJ, we get a few quick shots of him busting criminals before going off to battle the Goblin in a big action sequence where we see Spiderman in all his glory saving civilians and fighting bad guys. They build up his relation with Uncle Ben and we get to know Uncle Ben a little bit and get to like him making his death all the more tragic and allowing us to share Peters pain. On the other side we get to follow Norman before the fight, we see his strained relationship with his son and the board of directors which fuels his desperation to use the super formula, he's petty where he destroys a rival corporations factory, and when he gets kicked out of his own company he goes on a rampage and kills them in revenge. His strained relationship with his son causes him to try and find a replacement in the form of Peter and Spiderman which leads to Goblins motivations for the rest of the film. The first half builds up to the second half and makes us care about these two characters and their conflict with each other.
Spiderman reboot felt like characters and scenes played out just because we had to get to them. Best example would be Uncle Ben's death where instead of Peter being angered at being cheated out of his money for irresponsibly using his superpowers at a wrestling match he's short on cash at the grocery store and lets the robber go out of spite which leads to the thief killing Ben. One builds on the themes of personal responsibility, one is just things happen because the plot demands it and wants to get to Spiderman fighting a giant lizard monster.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Very good. A++
And yeah, the death of Ben in the Toby-Spidey movies is absolutely perfect - everything about it is flawless - because we all know, deep down, we'd probably do the same thing Peter would. But the point is, always do the right thing, no matter how much you may want vengeance, no matter how small and petty your action. (It's probably one of the reasons audiences revolted against Spidey 3, as it tried to retcon the death, but keep the core components, and failed because it was already perfect and you just make perfect things worse by adding or subtracting from them.)
Andrew-Spidey just messes this up (like everything else in the movie - except the action, that's well done) by making Peter more casual, less invested in the event. That moment needs an active Parker in it, he has to make the active choice (not passive choice) to let the shooter go.
The distinction is very subtle but vitally important, and I wouldn't trust any meatbag or writer who can't grasp it.
Andrew-Spidey just messes this up (like everything else in the movie - except the action, that's well done) by making Peter more casual, less invested in the event. That moment needs an active Parker in it, he has to make the active choice (not passive choice) to let the shooter go.
The distinction is very subtle but vitally important, and I wouldn't trust any meatbag or writer who can't grasp it.
- Joined
- May 4, 2020
The fuck did I miss?
The Neil Breen five-film thing is offline. Is that recent? Who the fuck is Samuel Araya?
The Neil Breen five-film thing is offline. Is that recent? Who the fuck is Samuel Araya?