Left or right?

Except the Burton version was much closer to the book.

Not in tone. It followed the plot more but it didn't benefit it any

It is odd that Charlie & Co is so old that I would not even associate it with the zoomer generation.

>underage
we prefer the word prepubescent here

I like both equally for what they are. One is a Dr Seuss acid trip and the other is Tim Burton's crackpot hallucination.

Attached: 220px-The_Simpsons-Jeff_Albertson.png (220x325, 56K)

They are both cunnykino

Original > Remake
Original Wonka > Remake Wonka
Original Veruca > Remake Veruca
Remake Violet > Original Violet

This is the best answer.

Both

Left is the best. Wilder played Wonka as a psychopath. Depp just played Wonka as an effeminate guy who uses candy to attract children.

youtube.com/watch?v=YaM4GHbEw8U

left was literally made just to be a feature length advertisement for candy
right was a remake for the shekels

Neither

Attached: image.png (800x450, 809K)

Remake was fucking shit. Didn't enjoy it at all.

NIGGER.

The Depp one is a good movie because it goes more into the back story of willy wonka and the set design was interesting, but nobody can do better than Gene Wilder.

Roald Dahl absolutely hated the original. Make of that what you will.

Wasnt he a drunk though

left by miles, it actually felt magical/fantastical, Wonka was eccentric and fun, but also sympathetic without hogging the limelight, and Charlie was at least somewhat like a normal kid with flaws, not the bland perfect angel he is in the new adaption.

Even just the factory in the new adaption felt so cold and dark and lifeless despite having better CG/effects.

Depends on what you’re looking for. Honestly the original feels more like a fantasy and has some classic nostalgic moments. Pure imagination is kino. The new one is actually a pretty great remake, it does it’s own thing and has fucking amazing casting. Christopher Lee cameo as Wonka’s dad was true kino. So was the casting of the kid and most the supporting family cast.

>Oompa Loompa songs

Those were awful. But they’re almost balanced out with the hunted backstory of willy wonka traipsing about Kipling-style in a pith helmet employing the natives with a machete. Imperialism schlock.

Check out the big brain on user

>willy wonka and the cf
>it's about charlie
>charlie and the cf
>it's about willy
still russles my jims

Left, anyone who say's right is a faggot.

Dahl hated all the best bits
>Dahl disowned the film, the script of which was partially rewritten by David Seltzer after Dahl failed to meet deadlines. Dahl said he was "disappointed" because "he thought it placed too much emphasis on Willy Wonka and not enough on Charlie", as well as the casting of Gene Wilder instead of Spike Milligan.[5] Dahl was also "infuriated" by the deviations in the plot Seltzer devised in his draft of the screenplay, including the conversion of Slugworth, a minor character in the book, into a spy (so that the film could have a villain) and the "fizzy lifting drinks" scene along with music other than the original Oompa Loompa compositions (including "Pure Imagination" and "The Candy Man"), and the ending dialogue for the film
Although Spike Milligan would have been great to see. Dahl would have hated the remake because it placed all the emphasis on Wonka.

70s Veruca was a cutie but left was far superior in terms of cun.

Attached: 1470834998651.jpg (615x402, 33K)

Who's fucking idea was that scary tunnel segment?
Why was it in the film?

Attached: 1526361447427.jpg (906x936, 849K)

Original
>much better Wonka
>better charlie and grandpa
>better plot
>better original material (Slugworth and the search for the ticket vs Wonka's dad)
>better movie overall
Remake
>better look of the factory
>better asshole kids
>better executions
>better musical numbers
If we disregarded Wonka in both movies then the remake would be superior. However since he's the most important character the original wins. Crazy maniac Wonka is overall much superior to the bootleg Michael Jackson Wonka.

I wish someone made a remake more true to the original vision with BLACK Charlie and NIGGER Oompa Lumpas. It would be greatest kids's kino for all time.

right. don't care for the lolis or the music or the old rickety grandpa faggot in the left.
right doesn't have great music either but it has cuter girls and better oompa loompas and a better grandpa and gets a little into why willy wonka is weird

I like both for different reasons. Left has the special magic that Wilder brings to the screen and some truly great scenes. Right has a stronger supporting cast and is an interesting look at the darker sides of Wonka's character that the Wilder version never really went into, and Depp brings his own charisma into it too, even if he doesn't have Gene's magic.

But I would say that the original probably has a stronger emotional effect overall, plus the tunnel scene is pure kids' movie horror kino
youtube.com/watch?v=o7lilfpZNGc

The guy is an absolute retard. The idea for the torture trap for kids is great, and it's sad that it didn't inspire any imitators. However the ending is non-functional in the movie. You can't have a story where main character wins just by doing as he's told, which is mostly just not doing anything at all. There's a reason why both original and the remake changed the ending, and he shouldn't have complained about it. Yeah, let's focus on charlie who's a complete non-character, brilliant idea.

Based David Seltzer

Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker

He was talking about getting in a girl's pants, right? Just making sure I got that right

I read the book when I was little before I watched any of the movies so to me right is best because it sticks to the book

For fuck's sake they even had the bit with the giant chocolate castle, that shit was amazingly brought to life just like I had always imagined it would be.
I still like the Gene Wilder one but to me everything coming to life just like in the book was amazing.

Attached: D0b44f62-e1cc-4eb6-ae0a-387cc6339f66.jpg (251x167, 17K)

Attached: 1567821004493.jpg (1024x1020, 102K)

That is fucking bs. Dahl hated Willy Wonka and never wanted another adaption again. His wife was only convinced by Burton because it respected his work.

Left.
I have a rule about Tim Burton: No Tim Burton.

Gene Wilder was a better Wonka but really that’s all the original has over the re-adaptation.

Watch Big Fish.

Charlie and the chocolate factory is overall a better movie, the only thing the Gene Wilder version has over it is the songs are iconic as hell, and his Wonka is better

>Left. Remake was Burton trash that didn't respect the book
Dahl wrote the screenplay for the first film and he absolutely hated what they did to the characters. In particular, they completely fucked up Charlie Bucket and the entire POINT of the story. He remarked in his autobiography that he wished he'd had the stones to tell the director to go to hell when said director said that Charlie needed to be "jazzed up". The Fizzy Lifting Drinks scene completely ruins the message of the story and Charlie as a character. It also ruins Wonka.

Sounds like it would be agaisnst the rule.

>You can't have a story where main character wins just by doing as he's told, which is mostly just not doing anything at all. There's a reason why both original and the remake changed the ending
No they didn't. Burton's version respects the ending. Charlie wins the factory because he was the only person capable of resisting temptation. It showed that he had the strength of character necessary to run the factory and protect the Oompa Loompas. It's fundamentally a story about haves and have nots. Of all the children, Charlie is the only one who has known hunger, known suffering, known desperation. These experiences have molded him into a young man who is GOOD. Every other child is rotten at heart. Spoiled and selfish.

the one with the chicken heads being cut off

UHHH IM GONNA COOOOM

>The Fizzy Lifting Drinks scene completely ruins the message of the story and Charlie as a character. It also ruins Wonka.
how?

explain it to me like i have never read the book

people who like the one on the right should be hung.

The entire point of the book was to NOT fail the test. In the film, Charlie AND Joe both fail the test but this is okay because they feel bad about it and shit.

go back!

name a kino that gave a shit about the book. that's right, fag, you cant

The Green Mile.

if we didn't have the fizzy lifting drinks scene we wouldn't have this kino

youtube.com/watch?v=fpK36FZmTFY

>No they didn't.
The part with Charlie refusing the factory when Wonka tells him to abandon the factory was not in the original. The ending is still changed. Both this part and fuzzy lifting drinks addresses the problem of Charlie literally having to do nothing to win his grand prize.
The second problem is that there is actually no temptation for Charlie to resist. All the other rooms were specifically designed to fuck-over the asshole kids, and there was no trap prepared for Charlie. In reality almost everyone would fall the tests because kids would be smart enough to not do things the tour guide explicitly tells them not to if he can throw them out at any moment. Both the old movie and the new one address the issue by giving charlie a choice of ending his life of poverty by abandoning his principles.
>The entire point of the book was to NOT fail the test. In the film, Charlie AND Joe both fail the test but this is okay because they feel bad about it and shit.
His only fault in he movie was listening to his grandpa whom he trusts who's a bit of an asshat. He wins the factory by not listening to him and following his own consciousnesses. He doesn't give him factory because he feels sorry, but because he actually is forced to make a difficult choice. On one hand he can acts decently and not sell-out Wonka even though he has nothing to gain, on the other hand he can act like a crook and finally get out of poverty.
There's a reason why Burton despite trying to make a faithful adaptation had to include the Wonka's dad part and expend the ending. The reason is that the original ending is completely non-functional. "Congratulations you've passed all my secret tests by doing absolutely nothing, here's your factor".
I understand why you dislike how it was fixed in the original, but it had to be fixed one way or the other.

Rohal Dahl is my favourite writer, somehow he's still underrated by the public

Wait for Burton to adapt more of his books.

I saw Charlie in 2005, first time I saw Depp suck in a role. It was the beginning of the end for him.

Manson and the chocolate factory was the best

Attached: 416316DE-60F2-425F-AC9B-583B27B4178E.jpg (495x523, 329K)

>somehow he's still underrated by the public
he's literally one of the most well known children's authors in the world and has been for decades

Zoomer BTFO

Screw that. Watch Big Eyes. Big Fish is 200% Tim Burton in Tim Burton that reeally wants to be whimsical the only thing missing was Aquarium from Saint-Saens's Carnival of Animals.

Based

left one was directed by a literal who that only made shitty tv movies before. if you don't have nostalgia goggles on you would be able to see it is a quite poorly made film. right is made by an actual competent director that was passionate about the project and capturing dahl's spirit

>soul vs soulless

I watched Burton's version first and then the original later. I haven't watched either as a kid but I loved the 70s version. Good songs, charming, Gene Wilder. I also liked Mary Poppins that obviously has higher production values. Both good for what they are.

Left
Wilder >>>>>> Depp

bump

Dahl hated the 71 version and hate Wilder as Wonka. He declined the film rights to make the sequel Charlie and the Great Glass elevator because of how much he disliked the 71 film.

After Roald Dahl's death in 1990 his wife, felicity, became very protective of Dahl's work: "The Dahl Estate's subsequent protection of the source material was the main reason that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had languished in development hell since the 1990s"

So the only reason why Burton was given the okay to direct his adaptation was because he was extremely enthusiastic and cared about the project a lot and felicity approved of the director, script and actors.

This is my favourite Wonka film.

Attached: Snowpiercer.jpg (674x1000, 103K)

bump

How dare you

Hehe.
Did the director respond to that vid at all?

Stephen King also hates The Shining, doesn't mean the author is always right.

I didn't even know this thing was "scary" until I hit my 20's and everyone kept going "AHH SPOOKY TUNNEL SCENE >

>Remake was Burton trash that didn't respect the book
kid's book

>an effeminate guy who uses candy to attract children.

remake effects were jarringly shitty.

it's almost like films and books are different mediums entirely

Attached: 7vyn10acoey11.jpg (640x339, 19K)

Why not both?

Attached: 1566277890241.jpg (355x780, 34K)

except kubrick was a visionary director that knew what he was doing and had actual reasons to change the story to fit his own cinematic vision. shifting the film's gaze from Charlie to Wonka isn't as nearly affecting- it seems like the focus on Wilder was used to make the film more marketable.

If he wanted to capture Dahls spirit he shouldn't have cast Depp as Wonka.

OK now i'm thinking this is based

In Burton's version, Charlie is the heart of the film - he is the moral basis and is a reference point from which we view and judge the other characters and their actions... Wonka (to begin with) is more or less heartless and detached. Whereas in the 71 film Wonka is the heart of the film and Charlie is just another kid. The 71 film sorely misses this dynamic in the book

But Burton's version is even more focused on Wonka. There's like 30 of new Wonka-focused scene, while Charlie is even less present than in the 70's movie.

Wonka isn't supposed to be the eccentric loveable uncle. He's supposed to be distanced from the outside world

>"This remake is actually much closer to the source material than the original classic"
It was a wake up call, I'll never fall for this gimmick again

I sade the gaze of the film. Not anything related to screentime

see? now you understand exactly why the wilder version is so based.

Attached: 2ldgc2f5nhj11.png (1688x800, 120K)

>You've never seen anything like this before

Attached: 1437346673648.jpg (625x552, 81K)

He said
"Wonkatania". Hahaha even when he's nice he's being mean. (Reference to the Lusitania if you're a fucking idiot)

>it actually felt magical/fantastical
probably because you were a kid when you watched it

not him but i rewatched the 71 film the other week and everything feels so flat and clunky

spbp

I'm not even sure what you mean by the "gaze of the film". But wonka is even more of a main character this time around. He gets the important flashbacks, he gets the stage (as usual) and he's to one to evolve though the film. Adding the emotional finale where he meets his father makes Charlie getting the factory feel almost insignificant in comparison. Not that it's a bad thing.

not him but I rewatched the 71 film the other month and everything felt magical, and I didn't even like it as a kid
youtube.com/watch?v=LIYNk4ARUR8

Not him also but I watched both for the fist time this week. Neither felt magical or flat, but Gene Wilder blows everyone else out of the water. His version would be superior even if he played in an empty room talking to puppets.

bump

youtube.com/watch?v=CVtRZPmP1Vk

I still cannot believe this is the same person

Attached: johnny-depp-willy-wonka-jack-sparrow[1].jpg (584x284, 165K)

Tim burton’s idea

I think it's fair to give both movies credit. They do good things and are unique in their own ways. At first I was skeptical of Charlie and the Choco Factory, but I think I can appreciate the moments when it really shined.

Right, midgets make me sick.

Burton's one has much much better visuals

Great glass elevator was completely insane and the world is better off without it filmed.

Attached: Annasophia Robb -- Willy Wonka.jpg (1136x1400, 323K)

i agree they would have cast wilder again

The godawful Shining miniseries is also much closer to the book than the movie. What's your point?

...

I legitimately enjoy both

I was actually livid when I saw the remake and got mad at my friend who was acting like it was hilarious.

>but this is okay because they feel bad about it and shit.

No, it's okay because he gave back the everlasting gobstopper despite wonka giving him nothing. You know that was the real test, right?

by the end have the other children not learned their lesson? if all of them fail the test what's the point?

Yes but the core screenplay is Dahl's directly, unlike the Depp version. Even though the 71 version is different I feel it closer to the spirit of the book than the letter.

more like she was running out of his money

Left is best
youtube.com/watch?v=F1jmhbw3JHw

I want it now!

Attached: verucasallt.jpg (259x194, 7K)

>by the end have the other children not learned their lesson?

They already failed their temptations, so they're out. The temptation for charlie was the money promised for the everlasting gobstopper which would take care of his family. He resisted that knowing he leaves with nothing, which is why he wins.

youtube.com/watch?v=YaM4GHbEw8U

Right is kino AF.

little brown guy XD shit my pants from laughter LOLOLOLO

youtube.com/watch?v=SIJnzoUvR_k

except it's not Dahl's screenplay when someone else changes it. also the fact that he thought Wilder was a complete miscast. no wonder why he disowned it

if she was running out of money she would have okayed an earlier version of a proposed film like with Jim Carey as Wonka for e.g.

Back when Pogo was at his prime.

I read Dahl's autobiography and he comes off as a bit egotistical

this is absolutely true. why do people get so defensive when they find out their beloved outdated flick isn't so great after all?

But everyone enjoyed the 71 film so who's in the wrong?

the only good bit he hated was the pure imagination song. he is absolutely right about the rest

>everyone
have you read this thread?

It would be much better than the Burton version.
Movies don't become outdated you retard, go back to Yea Forums

Might be mixed in the thread but normalfags enjoy the 71 version.

i'm not so sure. read the comments on

He's completely wrong about everything. His ending was useless, had to be changed, and straight-up upgraded the entire ending. Burton tried to be as faithful to this boomer cuck and suck his dick as much as possible, but even he realized that the story cannot fucking end with charlie getting the factory for following the basic common sense.

IMDB has 71 film rated a full note higher, family guy spoofed the 71 version, retarded Tom and Jerry whatever is also based on the old one. Yea Forums is split but normies prefer the original.

Based cunnyposter

for me it's the Veruca Salt song
youtube.com/watch?v=gtf9nmtTC7Q

I didn't see the 70s movie until a few weeks ago and it's really good about making the chocolate factory feel magical by actually spending time on the contest early on, and thus creating a contrast where the outside world is kind of crabby and sharp but the inside of the factory is warm and bubbly
In the new movie everything just feels too Burton-y, from top to bottom

It's a simple case of
Original = Soul
Remake = Soulless

The meme just works in this case.

except Burton's film isn't a remake

>raped by squirrels
Whatever happened to that actress? She could've had the same type of career as ASR.

imdb.com/name/nm1601297/?ref_=nmbio_bio_nm
idk man

Weird how she retired from acting after that movie.

right: soul
left: soulless
simple as that
also reminder that the '71 film was merely advertising for quaker oats candy

based and checked

Checked

Wilderfags on suicide watch like Gilda's in the hospital

holy freakin crap

Attached: 20190914_105455.jpg (640x400, 134K)

Both are fine

based

the most truthful truth of all
ultra get confirms it

Attached: thumbs-up-header.jpg (620x372, 43K)

checked my froindo

Attached: 15439602973174779.gif (333x250, 1.59M)

truthpilled

fine digits f a m

painfully based

WE'LL BEGIN
WITH A SPIN
IN A WORLD OF REPEATING NUMERICAL INTEGERS

It has an onscreen chicken decapitation

This. The remake showed that Wonka needed to be tested more than the kids did.

That he was wrong when he said it was trash for multiple reasons, both that burton didn't follow the book and that because of this the movie was trash.

she went to the incinerator and never got back.

That’s cringe

Her tight little pusy couldn't take much more pedowood cock

based and depp-pilled

Attached: 156838915215482996.jpg (700x933, 38K)

71 was panned when it came out you zoomer

No they don’t. The original was just in the public conscious longer and Boomers remember it because of their childhood. The Burton one is only about 15 years old and the people who “grew up” with it are only in their 20s-30s

ok then change it to:

71 = Soul
2009 = Soulless

This this can't be happening. '71 has more soul

Attached: 1478821200287.jpg (588x575, 50K)

Both movies are carried by the performances of their lead actors. Depp's weirdness was more congruent with someone who almost never leaves his factory due to childhood trauma. Wilder comes off as someone who shunned the world while plunging into its wildest depths to produce candy and chocolate better than his competition. The songs in Wilder's are weird and seemingly come out of nowhere, like a bad Disney movie imitation. Depp's movie had Deep Roy though....

Tough call. Both have their merits and detriments but at the end of the day, kids should be enticed to read the book regardless which one they saw.

This is so fucking based.

Depp tried hard to diassociate Michael Jackson connotations

There are very few people who would have grown up with Burton's version at all. Most people found it weird and won't watch it, so as a kid you just get exposed to what your parents let you.

NONONONONOOOOOOOOOO

Nobody "grew up" with Burton one because it's non existent in public consciousness. 71 Wonka is a classic, the new one is just another Burton movie, and not one of the well liked ones.

Left

i fucking hate zoomers

based

Attached: 1568381701699.jpg (419x424, 37K)

This.
>Original was literally a commercial for shitty candy
>Author hated it
>Visually looks like ass
>Was panned when it came out, only remembered fondly by boomers because muh childhood
>Songs are hot garbage

Checked for truth and justice

Right for nostalgia. Looking back his factory looked like some North Korea shit.

bump

I grew up with the Depp version and like it more. It was funnier and more wholesome as it made you actually care about Wonka

This right here.

It's like everyone here has taken crazy pills. Gasthem all.

I make nothing of it. It's a film adaption.

It had better music numbers and it was funnier

youtube.com/watch?v=_F7ANlvZORE

this. maybe some of elfman's best work

I imagine that the next step into pretending to be retarded is to claim the TV adaptation of the Shining was better than the film adaptation because King hated the latter.

Both Chocolate Factory films have their strenghts and weaknesses, but only a moron thinks the remake was an improvement just because it "looks nicer", which it doesn't for the most part, the effects are dated just like the old version and the music while being nice, is very out of place compared to the old. The lesson of the story hits harder in the old version, Charlie is a kid and acts like one, has the same temptations as any of the other kids and thinks about himself a lot; the new Charlie is a saint who can do no wrong and is never sad or angry. When the old Charlie gets the factory it feels earned, the new Charlie on the other hand feels like he did Wonka a favour for existing like the saint he is and Wona just repays the favour of his grace by giving him the factory.

The world in the old film feels more real, every character has an environment that reflects their upbringing, Charlie isn't in a fantasy land of god-knows-where like in the new film. There are scenes that don't make no sense like showing the oopa-loompa village, why would anyone need to see that? The fact that Wonka talks about a land nobody heard of in it of itself is part of the charm, showing it ruins the wonder because you know now that it's an actual place, all of the scenes that show the factory and wonka's wonders are UTTERLY UNECESSARY, why would you reveal the mistery? Why not make it seem like grampa Joe is making half of this shit up only to reveal that the factory is ACTUALLY WONDERFUCKINGLAND?

Basically, new version is zoomer bait, old version is boomer trash, but the old is clearly better, whoever claims otherwise has no clues what they're talking about and is just being a contrarian.

Right

Lolita wasn’t a fucking anime character

She is such a thicc juicy little snowbunny now, i honestly couldnt believe it

Shut the fuck up faggot. Nobody even liked the original when it came out. It looked like fucking shit then and it looks like it to this day. The changes made to Charlie don’t even matter and the songs suck a fat dick. Just because the gay ass metrosexual Charlie in the original was an annoying faggot doesn’t make him a better character.

It sounds like you just have nostalgia goggles on for the original. You know damn well if they didn’t have a shoestring budge they would have it be closer visually to the 00s version. Everything in the movie sans the dad stuff is in line with the book. The reason they didn’t show the stuff in the original is because they literally couldn’t because it was made like a fucking Made-for-TV movie.