Movie Remakes

Lethal Interjection · Post by **Lethal Interjection** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:36 pm

ruotwocone wrote:
mountainmage wrote:I'm not a fan of Johnny Depp. Ever since he grew to teeny-bopper stardom, and every woman has a crush on him, I've lost what respect I had for him
i think you may be backwards here... that's how he started, and then developed into an actor. Also Tim Burton is the man and Johnny seems to be the only person that really gets his visions (also Helena Bohnam Carter seems to... and Danny DeVito in Batman Returns, but still)

Depp seems to be one of the hardest working men in Hollywood. He really puts a lot behind his roles, which makes them great, which is why I appreciate them so much.

mountainmage · Post by **mountainmage** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:43 pm

ruotwocone wrote:
mountainmage wrote:I'm not a fan of Johnny Depp. Ever since he grew to teeny-bopper stardom, and every woman has a crush on him, I've lost what respect I had for him
i think you may be backwards here... that's how he started, and then developed into an actor. Also Tim Burton is the man and Johnny seems to be the only person that really gets his visions (also Helena Bohnam Carter seems to... and Danny DeVito in Batman Returns, but still)

You're saying that teenage girls everywhere didn't fall in love with the dashing and handsome Jack Sparrow?

Hanibalicious · Post by **Hanibalicious** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:08 pm

Lethal Interjection wrote:Another pseudo-remake that they made was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...
And think both are great.

The remake was ok- but the interminable sadness found in Gene Wilder's eyes cannot be duplicated nor surpassed. And that was what elevated it from a campy, bright 70's children's flick to a masterwork.

Sahan · Post by **Sahan** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:00 am

Hanibalicious wrote:
Lethal Interjection wrote:Another pseudo-remake that they made was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory...
And think both are great.
The remake was ok- but the interminable sadness found in Gene Wilder's eyes cannot be duplicated nor surpassed. And that was what elevated it from a campy, bright 70's children's flick to a masterwork.

Agreed, Gene Wilder made it work in his own way. And the 'tunnel scene' in the original still haunts me to this day.

Lethal Interjection · Post by **Lethal Interjection** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:20 am

Sahan wrote:Agreed, Gene Wilder made it work in his own way. And the 'tunnel scene' in the original still haunts me to this day.

Oh, for sure.
Some of Wilder's lines are just awesome. Particularly the poem in that tunnel, which is one of my favourite poems of all time.
I think I prefered the second as a whole, though the first was so awesome at points.
If you know what I mean

Hanibalicious · Post by **Hanibalicious** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 3:11 am

I just felt that the first was like a shakespearean sonnet. Unbelievable imagery, crazy allusions, and an otherwise fluffy bit of pop art unlocked by the couplet at the end- Gene Wilder showing what toll the modern world takes on the truly bohemian, those truly willing to try to live according to their own social scripts. Johnny Depp was weird with a dentist father.

Lethal Interjection · Post by **Lethal Interjection** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:31 am

Hanibalicious wrote:I just felt that the first was like a shakespearean sonnet. Unbelievable imagery, crazy allusions, and an otherwise fluffy bit of pop art unlocked by the couplet at the end- Gene Wilder showing what toll the modern world takes on the truly bohemian, those truly willing to try to live according to their own social scripts. Johnny Depp was weird with a dentist father.

I think I'm going to like you.
I basically agree with your assessments of the first.
The main problem I have is that the director/writer was really trying to be explicit in that view. It was almost preachy. Don't get me wrong, I really liked it, but I felt that it was a very pointed, opinionated adaption of the book.
The second was much more subtle, with far more homage to Dahl, himself, allowing his work to do the speaking, but in a more visual way.

Hanibalicious · Post by **Hanibalicious** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:10 am

Yes, the first was an explicit moralistic musical fable. Doesn't mean I can't love it, and pet it, and call it my own, until I crush the blu-ray like lenny smalls. Besides, sometimes things that made an incredible impact in printed form benefit when the director/screenwriter(s) stray from the source to make it their own- Babe, The Iron Giant, Fight Club, Jurassic Park being examples of this.

Lethal Interjection wrote: The second was much more subtle, with far more homage to Dahl, himself, allowing his work to do the speaking, but in a more visual way.

The problem I have with that the derail into Christopher Lee was far, far too jarring for me, and just seemed so forced. It seemed to take away from the mystique of Wonka.

However, I owned a battered old copy of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" with the Schindelman illustrations (as well as the sequel, where the vermicious knids were nothing but teardrops of circular squiggles), and the Burton version seemed like a spiritual successor to his dark, gaunt illustrations. That I really loved.

(Yes, I did lose those two books, and yes, I am hating myself for it.)

HARDKORE · Post by **HARDKORE** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:35 am

I read that the rights to Porkys has been sold. Would you watch a remake of it. The first one was awesome.

Lethal Interjection · Post by **Lethal Interjection** » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:30 pm

There was a bit of a disconnect with most of the father scenes. But thats the way you go with flashbacks (which were at least very obvious that they were flashbacks, which not all movies do, to the confusion of the viewer).