I felt like this version was closer to the book version. I also liked the tongue-in-cheek insinuation that the Oompa-Loompas actually ran everything and took care of Willy, rather than he take care of them.
I know you have to repeat the bit about the squirrels but when I saw this in the theater I was super impressed by how well the squirrels were rendered. Thinking back on it though, if it was all CGI it is MUCH better than the stuff they used for the opening credits, so I absolutely believe the close-ups are all real squirrels.
a few parts, maybe. But keep in mind, if you photograph the real thing, you can use it as a texture for photorealistic CGI, a la Jurassic Park. a realistic, say, crocodile-skinned squirrel would be a lot harder. I don't buy for a second that a squirrel really held a nut up to his ear to listen to it.
I always liked this one better than the original. I did see the original first as a child, but it never really spoke to me, so it doesn't carry a ton of nostalgia for me. While here I always enjoyed hte oompa loompas covering different genres of music and Depp's kookiness and humorous lines. I also found it interesting the irony that is "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was more about Charlie, while "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was more about Wonka.
I liked that this version touched a little more on Wonka's past and family. And it's definitely a different take on Wonka from the Wilder version. I think both are good in their own ways. Though I do like the music in this one a little more since the Oompas use different musical styles for the songs.
@@R0-83-RT I said this elsewhere in the comments, but I think they HAD to make the kids worse, because kids had BECOME a lot worse over the years. Both legitimately, and in the eye of parents for sure. There was a time when parents could expect to have almost total control of behavior at all times, so for them, the original book's kids would have been just outrageously out of control.
I honestly thought that was one of the worst things about it. IMO, none of it was needed, none of it was done well, and it was resolved so sloppily and terrible it makes me wonder why they even thought they needed to bother. Though he explained in the look at, the writer only shoved it in because they looked at the book and the first movie and said "there's not enough character development here". But imo there's a difference between good development and obligatory, poorly written Hollywood predictable soap opera tripe with a frontloaded anticlimactic 5 minute payoff. It was soulless tripe that was forced into the story about as badly as an episode of Dragon Ball Z filler.
No Chuck there's still more Wonka to do! Like...uh...that unnecessary animated version with Tom & Jerry...or, uh that 2023 film that can be seen as Paul Artreides having a massivr spice trip...
Score for this episode of Enterprise is 3 out of 10. While clearly a rip-off of the Voyager episode of nearly the same name, Enterprise writers don't seem to understand what the original episode was doing, or what made it special. Archer is on point as an irrational madman who, despite supposedly being a trained diplomat, is utterly incapable of conversing with other cultures without berating and insulting them. We also get a bit more detail about his daddy issues here. Travis makes a capable showing as a hopeful youth, for whom family is everything, though his troubled family life gets once again swept under the proverbial rug to be merely set-dressing, while the writers continue to avoid seriously discussing the political and economic context that would explain how the Buckets' lives are as poor and miserable as they are (there not being much profit in running interstellar trade from a dilapidated shack) while set in a supposedly highly advanced techno-utopia. Hoshi's character arc completes when the alien gum turns her the color of her uniform, T'Pol is condemned by the squirrel people as a "bad nut", while Malcolm finally experiences a traumatic transporter accident that we all knew was coming.
Thinking back on it, and all the arguments people have for and against this movie... I think for me it just comes down to the fact that I don't like Depp's performance. Everything else is forgivable, and there's enough positives about the movie to buoy it up otherwise, I just do not like the direction they went with Wonka. I guess there's just that undercurrent of "in order to have imagination you need to be a literal manchild" aspect that's a bit insulting, but it's more that it's just hard to watch him. He deliberately goes in an anti-charisma direction at points and that's super hard to pull off without putting off at least some of the audience.
To me the most off putting thing in this whole movie is how ugly everything is. The town, the factory, just everything was so dreary and depressing. I remember the first time I saw the chocolate room in the Gene Wilder version. It was vibrant and sparked my imagination for what the rest of the factory looked like. When they did the big reveal of the chocolate room in this version, it just felt so dull and depressing. It actually seems quite different than what I would imagine this version of Wonka would create. There are things I like in this movie, like his entrance and the joke about the puppet burn ward, but it just didn't have enough spark to get past the crippling depressive look of everything
@@shawnconder4984 Honestly I feel a large part of that is the over-reliance on color grading that was--and still is--a plague in this era of film. A lot of this stuff would look perfectly fine if they, you know... upped the saturation inside the factory, instead of making it barely different from the dusty gray as the outside world. Tim Burton loves his Dark Wonderland aesthetic, but... contrast, man! Contrast!
@rickpgriffin oh you're right. Contrast would have helped this movie, and a lot more of the era, a heap. Honestly alluding to Mt earlier comment, if they would have Depp's chocolate room look half as good as Wilder's, I'd have bought this one a bit more. Aside from looks though, I swear there is a good movie in there desperately trying to get out, it was just stifled by some, um, interesting decisions.
@@shawnconder4984 even the mood of it is ugly. It's ugly people living ugly lives... it's supposed to be a few good people, a few lightly flawed people, and a gaggle of profoundly spoiled rotten children who have bright shiny outsides to contrast Charlie's shabby look. The book stops at several points to have Wonka hand Charlie and oe some _food_ and ask if they've been eating okay. It's a clear kinda "not only look below the surface, but also address surface problems if you spot any" kinda thing. Not just "lol Tim Burton, the world is screwed up" Not that one is necessarily better than the other, but it's not hard to see why maybe one's gonna be less popular.
I figured it out. This Wonka performance is like a weird copy of Depp's Ed Wood performance. Same manic levels of obsession, same weird smile, same lack of blinking, and yet somehow not as endearing.
I have watched all the videos in this series and I'm glad that i didn't waste my time seeing the 2005 adaptation. Don't get me wrong, I like the films of Tim Burton. The modern adaptation for that matter the original did not appeal to me at all.
I could never get behind Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Part of that is bias due to my undying love for Gene Wilder and his movie. I think the biggest part is this came at the time when Tim Burton was essentially starting to Flanderized himself. I want to say Red Letter Media made the comment that one of the biggest issues was the whole movie felt very Tim Burtony. They should have left the factory stuff like that, but everything outside the factory should feel more realistic.
I think this movie is the one that officially made me sick and tired of Burton's aesthetic, Depp's acting, and remakes in general. Remove those three, and this film would have been, well, a different movie, but one I'd probably have liked more.
@@otaking3582 That's only true if you like Burton's aesthetic no matter the fit, Depp's acting as Willy Wonka, and think that the old movie wasn't great.
@@davdia You are talking about a film that had numerous comedic cutaways like ones from a sitcom episode that do nothing to forward the plot, and pad the runtime of the first act of the film. And treats the entire supporting cast like expendable trash to be abruptly forgotten about, and given no conclusive sendoff, and ends abruptly. The film is a classic, but this one is far more concise in terms of plot.
@@TheNotverysocial Except the whole point of the original is to be magical, not to make sense. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but what you're doing is saying that a documentary is better than Star Wars because it's more realistic, when that was never the point of Star Wars.
@@davdia Simply put, Charlie is more efficiently told. Better technically composed. There is a good reason those sketches from around the world are omitted when WW plays on television.
It's at this point that Burton's take really cripples this film, and it's because of the point you mentioned in the background video - this Wonka HATES children. He doesn't dislike how some children have been raised, he doesn't despair at what the cruel adult world does to children - he downright despises children. He does not have any room in his heart for them at all, and everything he's ever done has been for explicitly selfish reasons. He might be a victim himself, but he took that experience and used it to excuse making more victims, instead of growing some empathy. And that's so intensely off-putting, no amount of CGI whimsy and Candy Crush levels can make up for it. I don't believe this movie for a minute, and that's not because of the painfully obvious CGI.
I was going to bring up something similar. Wonka's disconnection from children rather than still retaining some of his childlike perspectives doesn't quite work for me, either. Burton's darker style may be closer to the book (I've never read it), but it doesn't seem as magical as the original's brighter colors and feels less whimsical as a result. The only thing I really like about this movie versus the original is the variety of the shaming songs, each one being unique rather than the same "riddle for you" of the original.
@@otaking3582 That shouldn't include Charlie. Gene's Wonka gave them all an equal chance to fail. Johnny's Wonka makes you wonder why he chose children.
@@ShadowWingTronix What sense would it make to be succeeded by another adult, one that's likely to die around the same time as him? And prior to Charlie rejecting the prize, he mostly showed apathy towards Charlie.
@@otaking3582 I'm not talking about THESE children. I'm talking about children. All children. Generally, unspecified, in concept. Burton's take is that Wonka hates CHILDREN. That is a bad take.
Whilst I can dig the bleak aesthetic of the outside world in this film, it’s the factory interior that doesn’t quite work. The town Charlie lives in has no distinct time or place setting, which I think adds to the surrealism. The inside of the factory, however, is almost just as dull and bleak as the outside world, and all the stuff Wonka shows off is just a weak imitation of the 1971 film or something random that doesn’t really settle in.
Burton's early films were good and unique. This one just felt like Tim Burton was trying to be too Tim Burton. Like a 14 year old Goth trying to be Tim Burton. And I also say that Depp was trying way too hard in this one.
Did you mean to post this on a video about 2010's Alice in Wonderland? naw naw it applies to both, but man that is when a lot of us were like "okay, it's over"
Wonka as imagined by Burton just didn't resonate with me, and I don't think Depp's performance is to blame. I think he did the best he could, but the writing simply wasn't up to snuff. Either the writer(s) failed to capture Burton's image of Wonka, or Burton's image was flawed to begin with...or some combination of both.
Gods the Mike TV bit in this one always annoyed me. That's because, while he's making his point like an a-hole(Rick would be proud), he's not WRONG in anything he says. This thing is one of the nine 'Gamebreaker' techs in scifi, pure teleportation, along with a Holodeck functionality. Heck, the problem seems to be the receiver more than the transmitter, build a bigger screen and it will work. Now, Mike's a bullheaded idiot, you file this stuff away for later, and reveal he has it to the world afterwards, and the governments will beat down his door to get it. The ability to 'transmit' materials or peoples with any kind of receiver at the end? We'd have bases on Mars and Ganymede as soon as we could land stuff on them, and probably begin terraforming a week later. Of course, it does require more testing, as demonstrated by what happened to Mike himself. However, he directly interacted with the programs, which is yet another thing the tech gives, again, it's a holodeck, transporter, and seemingly matter converter depending on how it works, all in one. This thing isn't just a revolution, it's an EVOLUTION all in one neat little package. I know the lesson is that he's not seeing the whimsy in it, but my take away is, Wonka's the sort that Menlo Park was actually built to accommodate, the people with big ideas who want to see them through, but lack the ability to see the applications beyond the single thing they decided for it. Heck even the shrinking effect can be a good thing, in the case of some electronics. You could build them big and clunky, and then make them palm sized for use. Or build small, and go nano.
You know that when you're talking advancement, _evolution_ is the slow and steady (put a bigger motor in the tank, or more durable treads, or thicker armor) while _revolution_ is the big leap forward (like putting a big gun in a turret with full rotation instead of smaller ones in sponsons.) So when you say it's an _evolutionary_ advance, you're saying that it doesn't do anything new, it just does something that could already be done, better. I don't believe that is your intent, but that's what the terminology used means.
I've seen the footage. They really did train those squirrels
I felt like this version was closer to the book version. I also liked the tongue-in-cheek insinuation that the Oompa-Loompas actually ran everything and took care of Willy, rather than he take care of them.
The unexpected 'See you next Tuesday' broke me XD
Our lady of Tom Servo! Haah. Fantastic!
I know you have to repeat the bit about the squirrels but when I saw this in the theater I was super impressed by how well the squirrels were rendered. Thinking back on it though, if it was all CGI it is MUCH better than the stuff they used for the opening credits, so I absolutely believe the close-ups are all real squirrels.
a few parts, maybe. But keep in mind, if you photograph the real thing, you can use it as a texture for photorealistic CGI, a la Jurassic Park. a realistic, say, crocodile-skinned squirrel would be a lot harder. I don't buy for a second that a squirrel really held a nut up to his ear to listen to it.
I always liked this one better than the original. I did see the original first as a child, but it never really spoke to me, so it doesn't carry a ton of nostalgia for me. While here I always enjoyed hte oompa loompas covering different genres of music and Depp's kookiness and humorous lines.
I also found it interesting the irony that is "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was more about Charlie, while "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" was more about Wonka.
I liked that this version touched a little more on Wonka's past and family. And it's definitely a different take on Wonka from the Wilder version. I think both are good in their own ways. Though I do like the music in this one a little more since the Oompas use different musical styles for the songs.
There is something satisfying about the ending, the dad realizing his son has perfect teeth despite working in a candy factory, so he was wrong.
I also feel the Ticket winners better reflect the idea of being spoiled than the 1971 version.
@@R0-83-RT I said this elsewhere in the comments, but I think they HAD to make the kids worse, because kids had BECOME a lot worse over the years. Both legitimately, and in the eye of parents for sure. There was a time when parents could expect to have almost total control of behavior at all times, so for them, the original book's kids would have been just outrageously out of control.
I honestly thought that was one of the worst things about it. IMO, none of it was needed, none of it was done well, and it was resolved so sloppily and terrible it makes me wonder why they even thought they needed to bother. Though he explained in the look at, the writer only shoved it in because they looked at the book and the first movie and said "there's not enough character development here". But imo there's a difference between good development and obligatory, poorly written Hollywood predictable soap opera tripe with a frontloaded anticlimactic 5 minute payoff. It was soulless tripe that was forced into the story about as badly as an episode of Dragon Ball Z filler.
2:00 Great, now Rick and Morty will have to change dimensions again.
4:23 The second best shot in the movie.
No Chuck there's still more Wonka to do! Like...uh...that unnecessary animated version with Tom & Jerry...or, uh that 2023 film that can be seen as Paul Artreides having a massivr spice trip...
I mean both are better than this one, i'd say.
He has already set a precedent for reviewing Futurama so now he has to review Fry and the Slurm Factory.
Score for this episode of Enterprise is 3 out of 10. While clearly a rip-off of the Voyager episode of nearly the same name, Enterprise writers don't seem to understand what the original episode was doing, or what made it special.
Archer is on point as an irrational madman who, despite supposedly being a trained diplomat, is utterly incapable of conversing with other cultures without berating and insulting them. We also get a bit more detail about his daddy issues here.
Travis makes a capable showing as a hopeful youth, for whom family is everything, though his troubled family life gets once again swept under the proverbial rug to be merely set-dressing, while the writers continue to avoid seriously discussing the political and economic context that would explain how the Buckets' lives are as poor and miserable as they are (there not being much profit in running interstellar trade from a dilapidated shack) while set in a supposedly highly advanced techno-utopia.
Hoshi's character arc completes when the alien gum turns her the color of her uniform, T'Pol is condemned by the squirrel people as a "bad nut", while Malcolm finally experiences a traumatic transporter accident that we all knew was coming.
I want to sponsor a Wonka review just to see the write-up for the Discovery episode.
@@Future_Vantas 😂
Bucket's? Travis's last name is Mayweather.
@@Future_VantasTimothee Chalamet's depiction of Michael Burnham leaves a lot to be desired
Thinking back on it, and all the arguments people have for and against this movie... I think for me it just comes down to the fact that I don't like Depp's performance. Everything else is forgivable, and there's enough positives about the movie to buoy it up otherwise, I just do not like the direction they went with Wonka. I guess there's just that undercurrent of "in order to have imagination you need to be a literal manchild" aspect that's a bit insulting, but it's more that it's just hard to watch him. He deliberately goes in an anti-charisma direction at points and that's super hard to pull off without putting off at least some of the audience.
To me the most off putting thing in this whole movie is how ugly everything is. The town, the factory, just everything was so dreary and depressing. I remember the first time I saw the chocolate room in the Gene Wilder version. It was vibrant and sparked my imagination for what the rest of the factory looked like. When they did the big reveal of the chocolate room in this version, it just felt so dull and depressing. It actually seems quite different than what I would imagine this version of Wonka would create. There are things I like in this movie, like his entrance and the joke about the puppet burn ward, but it just didn't have enough spark to get past the crippling depressive look of everything
@@shawnconder4984 Honestly I feel a large part of that is the over-reliance on color grading that was--and still is--a plague in this era of film. A lot of this stuff would look perfectly fine if they, you know... upped the saturation inside the factory, instead of making it barely different from the dusty gray as the outside world. Tim Burton loves his Dark Wonderland aesthetic, but... contrast, man! Contrast!
I just think you have bad taste.
@rickpgriffin oh you're right. Contrast would have helped this movie, and a lot more of the era, a heap. Honestly alluding to Mt earlier comment, if they would have Depp's chocolate room look half as good as Wilder's, I'd have bought this one a bit more. Aside from looks though, I swear there is a good movie in there desperately trying to get out, it was just stifled by some, um, interesting decisions.
@@shawnconder4984 even the mood of it is ugly. It's ugly people living ugly lives... it's supposed to be a few good people, a few lightly flawed people, and a gaggle of profoundly spoiled rotten children who have bright shiny outsides to contrast Charlie's shabby look. The book stops at several points to have Wonka hand Charlie and oe some _food_ and ask if they've been eating okay. It's a clear kinda "not only look below the surface, but also address surface problems if you spot any" kinda thing. Not just "lol Tim Burton, the world is screwed up"
Not that one is necessarily better than the other, but it's not hard to see why maybe one's gonna be less popular.
I figured it out.
This Wonka performance is like a weird copy of Depp's Ed Wood performance.
Same manic levels of obsession, same weird smile, same lack of blinking, and yet somehow not as endearing.
(gasp), an MST3K reference!!??
9:12 and that’s why job training and education is a good thing.
Love that you can see Mr. Bucket reading a mechanics book in the background in the first act.
Didnt mention the pink jumper as an Ed Wood reference??
I have watched all the videos in this series and I'm glad that i didn't waste my time seeing the 2005 adaptation. Don't get me wrong, I like the films of Tim Burton. The modern adaptation for that matter the original did not appeal to me at all.
Are you gonna include the crossover with Tom & Jerry?
I could never get behind Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Part of that is bias due to my undying love for Gene Wilder and his movie. I think the biggest part is this came at the time when Tim Burton was essentially starting to Flanderized himself. I want to say Red Letter Media made the comment that one of the biggest issues was the whole movie felt very Tim Burtony. They should have left the factory stuff like that, but everything outside the factory should feel more realistic.
I think this movie is the one that officially made me sick and tired of Burton's aesthetic, Depp's acting, and remakes in general. Remove those three, and this film would have been, well, a different movie, but one I'd probably have liked more.
But Burton's aesthetic, Depp's acting, and remaking a movie that wasn't that great in the first place are part of this movie's appeal!
@@otaking3582 That's only true if you like Burton's aesthetic no matter the fit, Depp's acting as Willy Wonka, and think that the old movie wasn't great.
@@davdia You are talking about a film that had numerous comedic cutaways like ones from a sitcom episode that do nothing to forward the plot, and pad the runtime of the first act of the film.
And treats the entire supporting cast like expendable trash to be abruptly forgotten about, and given no conclusive sendoff, and ends abruptly.
The film is a classic, but this one is far more concise in terms of plot.
@@TheNotverysocial Except the whole point of the original is to be magical, not to make sense. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but what you're doing is saying that a documentary is better than Star Wars because it's more realistic, when that was never the point of Star Wars.
@@davdia Simply put, Charlie is more efficiently told. Better technically composed.
There is a good reason those sketches from around the world are omitted when WW plays on television.
It's at this point that Burton's take really cripples this film, and it's because of the point you mentioned in the background video - this Wonka HATES children. He doesn't dislike how some children have been raised, he doesn't despair at what the cruel adult world does to children - he downright despises children. He does not have any room in his heart for them at all, and everything he's ever done has been for explicitly selfish reasons. He might be a victim himself, but he took that experience and used it to excuse making more victims, instead of growing some empathy. And that's so intensely off-putting, no amount of CGI whimsy and Candy Crush levels can make up for it. I don't believe this movie for a minute, and that's not because of the painfully obvious CGI.
I was going to bring up something similar. Wonka's disconnection from children rather than still retaining some of his childlike perspectives doesn't quite work for me, either. Burton's darker style may be closer to the book (I've never read it), but it doesn't seem as magical as the original's brighter colors and feels less whimsical as a result. The only thing I really like about this movie versus the original is the variety of the shaming songs, each one being unique rather than the same "riddle for you" of the original.
Have you actually SEEN these children? You'd hate them, too.
@@otaking3582 That shouldn't include Charlie. Gene's Wonka gave them all an equal chance to fail. Johnny's Wonka makes you wonder why he chose children.
@@ShadowWingTronix What sense would it make to be succeeded by another adult, one that's likely to die around the same time as him? And prior to Charlie rejecting the prize, he mostly showed apathy towards Charlie.
@@otaking3582 I'm not talking about THESE children. I'm talking about children. All children. Generally, unspecified, in concept. Burton's take is that Wonka hates CHILDREN. That is a bad take.
Whilst I can dig the bleak aesthetic of the outside world in this film, it’s the factory interior that doesn’t quite work. The town Charlie lives in has no distinct time or place setting, which I think adds to the surrealism. The inside of the factory, however, is almost just as dull and bleak as the outside world, and all the stuff Wonka shows off is just a weak imitation of the 1971 film or something random that doesn’t really settle in.
Burton's early films were good and unique. This one just felt like Tim Burton was trying to be too Tim Burton. Like a 14 year old Goth trying to be Tim Burton. And I also say that Depp was trying way too hard in this one.
Did you mean to post this on a video about 2010's Alice in Wonderland?
naw naw it applies to both, but man that is when a lot of us were like "okay, it's over"
Wonka as imagined by Burton just didn't resonate with me, and I don't think Depp's performance is to blame.
I think he did the best he could, but the writing simply wasn't up to snuff. Either the writer(s) failed to capture Burton's image of Wonka, or Burton's image was flawed to begin with...or some combination of both.
Gods the Mike TV bit in this one always annoyed me. That's because, while he's making his point like an a-hole(Rick would be proud), he's not WRONG in anything he says. This thing is one of the nine 'Gamebreaker' techs in scifi, pure teleportation, along with a Holodeck functionality. Heck, the problem seems to be the receiver more than the transmitter, build a bigger screen and it will work.
Now, Mike's a bullheaded idiot, you file this stuff away for later, and reveal he has it to the world afterwards, and the governments will beat down his door to get it. The ability to 'transmit' materials or peoples with any kind of receiver at the end? We'd have bases on Mars and Ganymede as soon as we could land stuff on them, and probably begin terraforming a week later.
Of course, it does require more testing, as demonstrated by what happened to Mike himself. However, he directly interacted with the programs, which is yet another thing the tech gives, again, it's a holodeck, transporter, and seemingly matter converter depending on how it works, all in one. This thing isn't just a revolution, it's an EVOLUTION all in one neat little package.
I know the lesson is that he's not seeing the whimsy in it, but my take away is, Wonka's the sort that Menlo Park was actually built to accommodate, the people with big ideas who want to see them through, but lack the ability to see the applications beyond the single thing they decided for it.
Heck even the shrinking effect can be a good thing, in the case of some electronics. You could build them big and clunky, and then make them palm sized for use. Or build small, and go nano.
You know that when you're talking advancement, _evolution_ is the slow and steady (put a bigger motor in the tank, or more durable treads, or thicker armor) while _revolution_ is the big leap forward (like putting a big gun in a turret with full rotation instead of smaller ones in sponsons.)
So when you say it's an _evolutionary_ advance, you're saying that it doesn't do anything new, it just does something that could already be done, better.
I don't believe that is your intent, but that's what the terminology used means.