The passage of time has done little to erase the cursed image that is Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka from our brains, but maybe tossing a cute little hat on Timmy Chalamet’s precious noggin will do the trick. Deadline reports that Chalamet has signed on to play the title role in Wonka, the upcoming prequel film which will explore the origins of the character created by Roald Dahl and famously portrayed by Gene Wilder in 1971's Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory. Like that film, the prequel is said to be a musical, and if tossing a bowtie on a fancy lad named Timothée Chalamet and making him do a little song-and-dance wasn’t twee enough for you, Wonka will be directed by Paul King—the man behind those adorable Paddington movies Film Twitter loves so dang much.
Willy Wonka feels like a hard left after Call Me By Your Name, two Greta Gerwig films, and Denis Villeneuve’s Dune—at least until you remember the career trajectory of Ryan Gosling, and then it all kind of makes sense. We’re about a year at most away from lil Tim Tim releasing a chill wave album. At any rate, we’ve already lived through Johnny Depp playing this old maniac with a candy factory like Michael Jackson, so it literally can only be better than that.
161 Comments
In this prequel, we see how Wonka breaks bad, and allows his drive to be the greatest confectioner to corrupt him to the point where he’s violating immigration laws and using slave labor to churn out a high quality product for less than what his competitors can make.
Hot take: the Oompa Loompas are actually a hive mind that run everything, they just let Wonka cavort around and think he owns the place.
You know… that would make sense. That’s why it was fine to let a kid like Charlie take over the factory. He’s just a figurehead for them to control. And the younger they get him, the longer they have to manipulate him to their will.
Seeing something like this but with a bit more of ‘The Order to Stop the Construction’
Under all his smiles and silliness, Wonka is tired. Bone tired. He has had to play the face to the zealously industrious Oompa Loompas for much of his life and, through them, his dream of being a chocolateer has become a living nightmare. He must live and breath for the factory. The Oompa Loompas won’t let him leave. They won’t let him stop. They won’t let him die.
Not until he can find a successor.
Charlie inherits his factory and his curse.
Freed of his burden, Wonka walks into the chocolate river, welcome death’s sweet, chocolatey embrace.
I would watch the hell out of this, especially if the whole contest thing is just to lure in kids to be sacrificed in one of the Oompa Loompas’ holy rituals.
Midwonkar
Don’t forget how he made an entire generation of children obese by feeding them nothing but sugar filled candy.
essentially “There Will Be Blood” but with chocolate and Wonka. They should just cast DDL as Wonka and get it over with
There’s a whole ocean of milk chocolate down there, and I’m the only one who can get at it!Seriously though, how amazing would DDL be as Wonka? He’s a great actor, and I love how serious he takes his craft, but I’d love to see him cut loose just once and go really arch, high camp.
I say this about a lot of actors, but DDL in, say, a Coen Brothers movie– one of their lighter ones, heavier ones, doesn’t matter– would be pretty great.(Actually now I’m picturing him in the part Ralph Fiennes played in Hail Caesar! and it’s working pretty damn well)
I’ll tell you what, he’d have been perfect as the Professor in “The Ladykillers.” Tom Hanks was miscast.
I mean there was definitely some arch high camp in The Phantom Thread – especially the breakfast scene.
I’d also be ok with a super dark ( i hate using the word gritty, but that too) take on the story that was less about dreams coming true and more a critique of capitalism and Big Sugar.
“I drink your fizzy lifting drink. I drink it up!”
“I’ve abandoned my boy! I’ve abandoned four children, actually!”
*BURPS*
this comment and the replies just gave me life. PLEASE SNL STEAL THISfill your easter basket with choco-mallo bastards!
I would watch the hell out of this.
I can see Paul Dano as Charlie Bucket. “I WANT MY REWARD!” *Wonka shoves him into a puddle of chocolate as Charlie squeals*“I’m gonna turn you into an everlasting gobstopper!”
‘There Will Be Snozzberries’.
Donto forget his decision to take a huge chocolate bar and make it much smaller. That way there’s something for capitalists to hate, too.
I ordered a new Highlander, not a Willy Wonka. How do I return?
YOU’LL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT!
Now that I could get into.
Hot take: the Tim Burton version isn’t bad. Sure, the backstory was unnecessary… and strange… and not needed… but at least Christopher Lee got a paycheck so something good came from it.But the Burton film has some absolutely spectacular set design, an underrated soundtrack from Danny Elfman, good portrayals of the kids. Even Johnny Depp’s performance I find enjoyable for just how relentlessly off-putting his Wonka was.And it’s a masterpiece compared to Burton’s Alice in Wonderland.
Oh for fuck’s sake.
Hey, that was my comment you just typed!
On a list of “characters who could use a good origin story” Willy Wonka is . . . not on it. (I thought I had something more creative for that, but nope.)
How about the rise of Ludwig Salt, who came from humble origins in Bavaria, battled the establishment, faced death threats and lost friends and managed to found the greatest legume empire the world has ever seen. He retires a satisfied man, confident he has bequeathed a colossus of the industry to his son Robert.
And the post-credits scene is Robert and his wife introducing their new baby girl Veruca to Ludwig, and the baby throws up on him.
Makes me think of, “what if we tell a story about Superman, but it’s his grandpa!” logic.
While we’re at it, let’s do a Dr. Henry Jones Senior origin story. It’s just a young Sean Connery impersonator studying the holy grail at the library and writing in his journal for 10 episodes a season.
Maybe…. just maybe… Marcus’ line about, “I’ve known your father since time began” isn’t just a metaphor for knowing someone a long time.
Maybe Henry and Marcus are actually reincarnated Scottish warriors and Marcus remembers.
I always thought that, since Indy and Henry Jones Sr drank from the Holy Grail, they are now virtually immortal. I think Lucas or Spielberg or somebody later said “oh no, it only works while they’re inside the temple” or some such shit that doesn’t make any sense because they didn’t want to deal with the ramifications.
I think it was because they wanted to make more sequels with Ford, and for some reason they couldn’t convince him to stop aging.
In complete fairness, the knight pretty much explicitly says in Last Crusade that if you want to be immortal, you need to stay inside the temple while drinking the cup:“The Grail cannot pass beyond the great seal. That is the boundary — and the price — of immortality.”
Well yeah, that’s why the temple collapsed, but he didn’t say that Indy and his Dad had to stay inside after drinking from it, just that the Grail couldn’t leave. I mean, in a great movie it’s not that big of a deal, but it’s still kinda bullshit.
And hey, they missed out on all of the B-movie glory of “Indiana Jones in the 23rd Century!!!”
It’s kind of heavily implied, though. The boundary of immortality is the temple; ergo, leaving the temple means you leave behind immortality, unless you go back in and drink from the cup again. It reinforces that Elsa and Donovan and the Nazis wrongly thought that immortality was a prize, when in fact it was a sacrifice the knight was making to protect the Grail. …Although yes, fine, I would like to see Indiana Jones in the 23rd Century, you got me, but this is the Internet so I’m not giving up without a fight. So just presume I said something indecorous about your mother or something.
What about a gritty drama that explores the lives of the kids rescued from the factory?
Same here, we don’t need another Wonka. However, (and I don’t know what it says about me) I think the only extremely small glimmer of hope for this movie is:…Wonka will be directed by Paul King—the man behind those adorable Paddington movies…
I bet the Gloops have a fascinating story. Two refugees from the Nazis (and yes, I get the irony of a Dahl property doing an anti-Nazi story) are forced on the run from Germany and have to eat nothing but tree bark and lizards on the way to England. They swear their son Augustus will never go hungry…
I get the irony of a Dahl property doing an anti-Nazi storyHis anti-Semitic views notwithstanding, Dahl was staunchly anti-Nazi and a WWII fighter ace.
He did spy work as well, James Bond-style.
Mike TeeVee’s backstory reveals he’s just an asshole.
What’s the irony?
No kidding. Who here was waiting with baited breath for a prequel to Wonka? Anyone? Anyone? No one in the back? Show of hands?
What’s the over-under on a Trump joke popping up when Wonka enslaves a bunch of tiny orange people?
“I rescued them from the distant island nation of Mar a Lago.”“Wow that sounds horrible.”“Yes it truly was the worst place on God’s green earth.”
Instead of singing a song when the kids die, the Oompa Loompas just tweet the word “SAD” and blame Obama.
In the movie itself? Extremely low chance. In interviews with comedians on the press tour and especially on sites like this? 100 percent.
There is nothing good about this.
“the upcoming prequel film which will explore the origins of the character”I know it’s just screaming-into-the-void at this point, but..why?
It’s really a sequel to ‘Dune’ where Paul opens a melange-infused candy company.
The acne you get from those candies is very extreme.
Sparksy Wonka and the Stimutac Factory!
It’s a supplement! It’s 99% kelp!
No.
A Willy Wonka prequel? There have got to be some better story ideas floating around Hollywood.
Chalamet and the Chocolat Factory.
Hey remember that super bowl ad where Timothee Chalamet played Young Edward Scissorhands?
Perhaps we’re gonna get a Young Johnny Depp Films cinematic universe starring Chalamet?
The irony is that Chalamet was/is in a relationship with Johnny Depp’s daughter.
Who keeps making Timothee Chalamet a thing?Mind boggling.
People who really, really enjoyed his turn as Finn Walden on Homeland.
He did kind of steal his scenes on Homeland to the point where I thought killing his character off was an odd choice.
I completely forgot his character died, since his plotline had already ended before then.
Counterpoint:SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
To his credit he’s made some pretty solid career choices – well, up to now, anyway.
People attracted to bashfulness.
I always did think Bashful was the sweetest of the seven dwarves.
But Doc was by far the sexiest.
His mum?
He’s actually a pretty exceptional actor. So there’s that.
The way he spells his name is so grating.
Make ‘glass elevator’ you cowards!
Dahl hated the first adaptation, so he arranged to prohibit any adaptations of Glass Elevator.
i thought they were making a netflix series out of it already?
Well, then we’ll get the last laugh in 2060!
I remember my mum reading it to me and kind of not feeling anything but assuming I liked it. Later someone at school read it to us, and at one point I looked over to my friend who was doing a yawning motion, and I realised “he’s right this is boring, and I don’t actually like it”. It was my realisation that liking an original doesn’t guarantee you’ll like a sequel.
Vermicious Knids.
Vermicious CGI Knids.
Counterpoint: There are no good adaptations of Roald Dahl books.
Matilda and fantastic mr Fox are delights so 🤷
Willy Wonka feels like a hard left after Call Me By Your Name, two Greta Gerwig films, and Denis Villeneuve’s Dune—at least until you remember the career trajectory of Ryan Gosling, and then it all kind of makes sense.
I mean, that’s every actor’s career now: Do the difficult indie/prestige films early so you can get the trophies (or at least nominations,) then leverage that success into a multi-picture deal with a studio that includes at least one franchise role. Studios can’t risk casting some nobody as a Chosen One or a Rebel With a Heart of Gold these days. To really sell the paper-thin plots and weightless CG antics, they need someone with certified award-winning gravitas to believably shout “Look out! The portal is collapsing!” while suspended by wires in front of a bluescreen.
That reminds me of the Andy Samberg bit at the Independent Spirit Awards a few years ago. He even mentions Chalamet.
Yeah, that works. Do the tough indie stuff that gets you noticed as a “serious actor”, then make an absolute mint with Marvel or Disney or Netflix or whoever, then do whatever the hell you feel like for the rest of your career.
That’s the Steve Buscemi model, where he has all the serious indie actor cred, yet nobody thinks he’s selling out when takes a role in an over the top blockbuster. I’d say that also extends to John Turturro.
Yep, to the point that him having been in Adam Sandler movies wasn’t a drawback!
Has anyone successfully transiti0ned to the “do whatever the hell you want” stage yet though? I guess we’re a little early into the Marvel theocracy to say for sure.
Well, I’m pretty certain RDJ and Chris Evans fit that bill (which makes the existence of Dolittle even more of a mystery). Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart both have done some interesting things since they have that Twilight money. (Sure, Pattinson is going to be Batman, but come on, if you’re an actor and someone says, “Hey, you wanna be Batman?” The answer is going to be yes.) Daniel Radcliffe has his Harry Potter money and has done some truly whacked out stuff like Swiss Army Man.
To be fair, Dolittle was apparently a passion project of Robert Downey Jr.’s for some unknown reason. It fits well within the “do whatever the hell they want” phase, but in the “disastrous vanity project” category of those types of projects.
To be fair, Dolittle was apparently a passion project of Robert Downey Jr.’sI didn’t know that, but okay, sorta makes sense. Though it’s weird that a personal passion project would also look so much like a corporate-dictated CGI crap-a-thon that actors begrudgingly do because they contractually owe the studio a movie.
Apparently there was a lot of studio interference and production problems, which is why it ended up looking so soulless, although by all accounts the original version of the movie was basically just a less soulless kind of bad.
All I could think of when seeing the trailers for ‘Dolittle’ was ‘The Contrabulous Fabtraption of Professor Horatio Hufnagel’.
More to the point, we’re a little early into the post-Marvel phase for the people who have completed their contracts to say for sure. Not going so hot for RDJ, but Chris Evans swerving from Endgame directly into Knives Out was a pretty good sign.
Jeff Goldblum maybe? Independence Day and Jurassic Park pretty much bought him a late career of whatever. Alec Baldwin maybe? He’s a baffling guy but seems to have all the money he needs and does whatever he wants.I mean “doing whatever the hell they want” doesn’t necessarily mean what they want to do is anything anybody wants to see. A lot of these actors are charming people but they’re not inherently great artists or even able to pick and choose the best roles when they’re able to call their own shots.
You can get on the super-fast track if you pretend to be gay in one of them.
I never read the book but Gene Wilder was fun to watch in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The Johnny Depp movie, on the other hand, was a nightmare of Johnny’s and Tim Burton’s worst unchecked tendencies. So is there some sort of untapped fandom of Willy Wonka that I’m unaware of? After seeing Hollywood mainstays like Robin Hood, Tarzan, the Lone Ranger, King Arthur and the like resuscitated only to die again due to mass apathy, maybe there just isn’t a large market for old characters whose stories have already been (better) told to be rebooted with young attractive actors who have no real attachment to the characters and more-realistic-but-bland-and-forgettable special effects? Or modern studios just have no real understanding of the reason these characters/stories appealed to people? I’m honestly puzzled by the latest rebirth of Kong and Godzilla, but they seem popular enough to consistently deliver large-but-relatively-disappointing opening box office weekends, so I fully acknowledge the possibility that I’m the one who’s out of touch.
There is a pretty massive Wonka fandom, actually. The original film bombed, but became beloved by generations of kids on TV and home video.Still doesn’t make this a good idea, for sure. But it does make the delusion of why this would be a good idea make more sense.
I think the Wilder movie was a very very big deal to kids who grew up in the 70s and 80s. Probably like Wizard of Oz where it was a big event when it ran on TV every year especially in the pre-VCR era.
There’s obviously a great motivation for studios who already have the rights to some IP (or where the property is public domain) to make a movie on the assumption that name recognition will get people through the door, but I always wonder if sometimes it’s pushed forward by some 70-something exec who genuinely harbours a childhood passion for, say, Tarzan and believes they can rekindle it on the big screen.
Willée Wonka
Salsa King!
was dubious but when i saw Paul King’s name, i was relived. this will be good.
It’s not too late to call this off, Hollywood.
So long as we are playing in this realm, let’s do this:
The Rejects. Grown-up versions of the other kids plot their revenge.
Veruca Salt, heir to the Salt legume fortune, pretends to be a genius billionaire philanthropist who has saved countless kids’ lives by designing a peanut that doesn’t trigger allergies. She donates the recipe to the world while secretly putting a mind-control chemical in whatever knockoff of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup they have to use.
Played by Jessica Chastain.
Augustus Gloop, who took his humiliating experience in the factory and became a workout fanatic. He is so self-loathing that he “punishes” his body with extra workout sessions if he even allows himself to smell chocolate. He is Veruca’s muscle and is terrifying to behold. Played by Dave Bautista.
Violet Beauregarde, known in the underworld as the Bluebird, is a master assassin for hire. She wears a mask to cover up her telltale blue skin and victims know her by the loud gum chomping. Played by Kerry Washington.
Mike Teavee, a legend in the hacking community known as White Chocolate, is Veruca’s technical wizard. Over time, he shrunk to a normal size, but he is confined to a wheelchair due to the stretching cure backfiring. Played by Bill Hader.
Charlie, played by Colin Hanks, is still CEO of Wonka Chocolates and he is happily married to a new character played by Mindy Kaling. Veruca is using her newfound popularity to attempt to ruin Wonka Chocolates and is working behind the scenes to destroy Charlie personally.
Grandpa Joe is inexplicably still alive and is played by Robert Duvall.
I want a nickel in royalties if this is actually used.
I’d love to see Jessica Chastain play a Peanut Butter Cup.
So Gloop became Ben Stiller’s character in Dodgeball?
Please tell me you’ve actively been working on this idea for the last 8 months and soon will have a completed script.
This actually makes sense to me.
No one asked for a Wonka origin story, though.
“There’s a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”“I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic.”
Ironic of Roald Dahl, given how prominently Jewish people figure into his films on-screen and behind the scenes, including this upcoming iteration of “Willy Shtups a Giant Peach.”
https://www.jewthink.org/2020/12/22/six-films-that-would-have-roald-dahl-turning-in-his-grave/
I know it’s irrational, but I don’t care – Gene Wilder is the only film adaptation I ever have any interest in seeing for Wonka. (and I read the books, but I still just want to remember the screen version as Gene).
Why do we even need another Willy Wonka?
Because:
So they went for a dude made from white chocolate powder?
I can’t wait to learn whose gob he wanted to stop.
Wow, usually Disney kids do something dirty to establish their sex appeal and try to appeal to an adult audience (see: Anne Hathaway in Havoc, or don’t)…it sounds like Chalamet is trying to kill off his sex appeal in one fell swoop.
I know the AV Club’s bizarre virtue-signaling mandate requires it to shit on any and all media even tenuously associated with Bad people, but Burton/Depp’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is good. You’re acting like it’s some well-established critical flop, but it was very well reviewed upon release.
Oh fuck right off with that bullshit. It was a steaming pile of mediocrity and greed, everyone knew it, but parents are always gonna need stuff to get their kids to shut up for two hours, so it’s hard to fail with family crap.And you do realize by name checking the empty buzzword “virtue signaling” you are doing THAT VERY THING. You might be trying to signal a different perceived group, but you’re still doing it ffs.
Y’know why “virtue signaling” is still a valid critique? Because its targets make a huge point of trying to say it’s meaningless/empty/tired/whatever.
I hated it because so much of the movie was spent on illogical craziness entirely put together on a computer and that it never really felt like a “place” for lack of a better term. Once they get to the factory, it’s just a long CG demo reel. The Gene Wilder version actually felt like a factory tour.At some point, why bother with trying to do the movie in live action if you are going to spend 5 minute long episodes of just riding a CG elevator in a void while oompa loompas are shooting fireworks at each other. Just do cartoon and be over with it.I did like the update to the Augustus Gloop oompah loompah song.Another thing that bugged me at the time was Burton talking about how his version was the true version and how it skewed much more closely to the 1970s version of the story….but then he adds all the stuff with the over-bearing dentist dad and the flashbacks to the discovery of the oompah loompahs which weren’t in the book.
That’s not really fair. The Burton version used a lot of built sets. The chocolate room (complete with chocolate river and waterfall), inventing room, nut room, TV room were all built sets. They even constructed a miniature of the factory and town for exterior shots.This was long before Alice in Wonderland, where Burton went full green screen/CG environments.
I’m probably one of the movie’s biggest defenders, but I will give you this: I don’t think the Burton film is any closer to the source material than the 70s film. I think they both diverge from the book about an equal amount.
It’s one of those weird blockbusters which got good reviews, made a lot of money and was (generally) well liked by audiences, but two or three years after its release in many circles you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who admitted to liking it.I watched it for the first time last year and found it (mostly) fine, it helped that I already knew about its chief weak points.
I don’t think I heard a single good word about it when it came out, but it was showing on TV around Christmas last year, and I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed it. Johnny Depp’s performance worked for me, and I thought the little Oompa Loompa numbers when each kid was eliminated were hilarious.Giving Wonka an origin story was about the only thing in the film that struck me as misguided, so I have misgivings about this project. Then again, the Paddington movies are great…
Me. I like it a lot.
Which is ironic, given all the overly liberal PC “virtue-signaling” the Depp version is full of — explaining away Wonka’s eccentricities by showing him as the poor victim of a psychologically abusive father, reassuring the audience that the other kids were just fine at the end, deleting the criticisms of “bratty” children from the original (don’t want to hurt anyone’s self esteem after all). That being said, while not something I’d recommend or watch again, I do remember it being reasonably entertaining and my young-at-the-time kids got way weirded out by the doll hospital scene, so there’s that.
The sequence of showing what happened to the kids after the tour is actually from the original book. The only reason it wasn’t in the original film was probably because of budget and technical constraints, because showing what Violet and Mike look like after the tour would have been difficult if not impossible to do in that time period. It was probably added to make the film truer to the book as was Burton’s overall stated intention, not for any political reasons. I’d also say that whether or not they are actually alright is subjective. Augustus and Veruca don’t have any damage that can’t be reversed by a bath or shower (plus some therapy, probably), but Violet and Mike both are permanently disfigured from the experience, and are going to have to deal with that for the rest of their life.The added Wonka backstory seemed to be added more due to Burton’s preoccupation with father-child relationships, which shows up fairly often in his work (not every film certainly, but enough for it to be considered a common motif of his), and implying that someone’s evil actions are simply the result of some kind of trauma isn’t really PC in any way.I’m not sure how you can claim bratty children weren’t being criticized in the film. Maybe a couple lines about it were removed from the book for time or pacing reasons, but the plot is still explicitly saying to children that if you act like this, bad things will happen to you. They deemphasized Violet’s chewing gum obsession and emphasized her over-competitiveness and superiority complex compared to the book. They also changed Mike from a Western-obsessed couch potato to a condescending gamer bro. Both of these characters are still extremely bratty (and arguably are more so than the originals) and the film treats them as such. It is targeting slightly different archetypes, sure, but it’s still calling out problematic behaviors, just ones more relevant to modern audiences. Mike Teevee especially needed updated since Westerns aren’t really popular with modern kids like they were in the 60s and 70s when the book and first film came out. Also, if they were trying to change the material to be more PC, they would have handled the Oompa Loompas very differently, to put it mildly, and probably would have excised the Indian Prince sequence.
I’ll admit you bring up some good points. While I read the book as a kid I didn’t remember the other children made a final appearance. I liked the ambiguity about what happened to them in the Gene Wilder version, it gave the whole thing a bit of a sinister undertone. I thought the Depp version (the one time I watched it) really dialed down any hints of darkness from the original, and while it might have still been critical of the other kids, it seemed noticeably less so to me. Overall I just got a pandering vibe. But very true, claims of PC aside, the Oompa Loompas from the Depp version would never pass muster in this day and age…
Oh is that what it was? I thought it was just garden-variety nostalgia for the Gene Wilder version. I remember I too was resistant to Depp as Wonka, but I liked his version quite a bit. It was very different from the first, but that’s fine. I’m looking forward to this one as well. I don’t know why everyone hates Timothee Chalamet, but I like him fine.
No, it is not good. It is mediocre to bad, and most certainly much much worse than the Wilder version.
Eh, when it came out I was still a big Burton superfan, had no issues with Depp, didn’t know a thing about Roald Dahl as a person and as such hadn’t yet really articulated any dislike for him (I still feel bad on that one – The Witches is such a delightful movie. Augh) and I recall really, really having to talk myself into liking it. I liked two things: the soundtrack and his “welcome” moment where the set melts.
All downhill from there – the backstory just didn’t work for me in spite of great casting there. Trust me, I very much wanted to like it!
Very well reviewed and liked by audiences on release, just like The Phantom Menace.(That said, I liked both TPM and Depp’s Willy Wonka film.)
Burton/Depp’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is good actually is exactly the take I’d expect from someone using the words “virtue-signaling” (sic).
Eh, people have been shitting on Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory since before Depp’s life completely fell apart.Also, it’s fine. Not as wretched as people make out, but not that great either. It’s not the first movie ever to be critically downgraded in the years since release and it won’t be the last.
Yeah Depp’s Wonka isn’t awful, but his Michael Jackson riff was nowhere near as good as his Keith Richards bit from the Pirates franchise.Also while Burton’s version hues closer to the book, the backstory daddy issues thing was unnecessary, the Indian prince bit okay but pointless and it ditched Roald Dahl’s addition made to original film of Charlie having to earn the right to the factory (good day sir!).
While the 70’s version is a bit cheesy and seemingly set in ‘Anywhereville’, it’s just more fun (and funnier) than Burton/Depp attempt. Seriously what would a computer do with a lifetime’s supply of chocolate? Would you really let your husband die because you don’t want to give his kidnapper’s your Wonka bars?
Hahaha. It was a lousy movie.
So the takeaway from the Burton/Depp one was “Let’s take the -absolute worst- part of this film and make a whole movie out of it”?The godawful shitty backstory flashbacks about Willy Wonka having a mean dentist dad were utterly insufferable, all in attempt to give a backstory to a character that actively should not have one. There is nothing you can do to Willy Wonka that ruins him faster than trying to explain him. An entire prequel film cannot be anything but terrible.
I agree. What makes Wonka compelling, to me, is you’re never sure why he’s doing the things he’s doing or what really motivates him. Is he trying to teach moral lessons, or is he just cruel? Wilder understood that, which is why he suggested the scene where Wonka hobbles with a cane, falls down, and then flips back to his feet. You’re meant to be left guessing all the time.
Is it Willée now?
Oh fuck that shit!Hollywood, make some new movies, will ya?
Roald Dahl had one f*cking wish. One. That Willy Wonka be played by an English actor because he felt the character was a very specific kind of English eccentric. He even hated Wilder’s take on the character, which isn’t fair but whatever.
I think one of the people Dahl had in mind was Spike Milligan.
Why do we need another Wanka? We’ve already got one perfectly wonderful Wanka, and the only time they tried to replace him, we got a dreadful Wanka. No more Wankas!
Or Wonkas!
Them neither!
Or Wakandas!Or A Fish Called Wandas!
The headline here (and other places) is about the casting. People commenting here have a lot to say about this actor… I don’t really get all the hate, but whatever. The new here is not the actor. The news is that the creator of two extremely over-achieving, unexpectedly deeply wonderful, entertaining, moving, fun, funny, charming, and just about perfect movies has a new project. I still wish Paul King were the one doing the recently announced Paddington 3, but that aside, I’ll follow him anywhere. I don’t care who is cast. I don’t care what character is at the center of the story. If Paul King is making this movie, I’m there.
K.
Can I request that none of this happens and that we all forget it was even suggested?
Hard pass.
Why does Hollywood keep thinking Will Wonka is a creepy pale lanky black haired MJ looking creepo? Stop making Will Wonka, Goth!
No, he’s not.
Nope.
Timothée Chalamet!Shama-ya, shama-yay!
I didn’t make the connection until I saw the picture of them next to each other, but holy shit, Chalamet looks a LOT like Gene Wilder
nope. gene wilder is my willie wonka.
I say Timothee Chala-nay!
Oompa Loompa Doopee-di Dequel
Who in God’s name actually asked for this prequel?
Oompa Loompa Doopee-di Diet
If it was you I’d wish you’d kept quietWhat do you get when they have no ideas?
And fresh story plots are Hollywood fears?
When the budget’s so huge it’s disastrous to fail?
And the prospect of risk makes exe-cutives quail? Endless recycled IP!Oompa Loompa Doodpee-di Dell
I’m not saying you should abandon Marvel
But give us a break and try something new
Like the Oompa Loompa Doopee-di Do!(Doopee-di Do!)
Willy Wonka doesn’t need an origin story.
I’m old enough to have seen the Gene Wilder one in a theater, and to be initially dismayed by his casting. I’d read the book, and boy oh boy was he not Willy Wonka. Willy Wonka is little, and lithe and energetic. He’s not a normal size person – he’s not Gene Wilder. (I was around 9 or 10.) Took about a minute into Wilder’s first scene to dispel me of all that. And even back then I could see that making the Oompa Loompas orange skinned, white-hair-and-eyebrowed dwarves was a lot better than what they are in the book (you know, pygmies. And slaves).Then years later, the Johnny Depp one came along and … he really sorta fits the book idea of Wonka. But it was a dull movie, and a weird portrayal (what was up with that voice) and the Wonka back story was just unnecessary.I’ve never seen this Timothee person in anything, and I’m sure he’s a good actor. But no, we don’t need another Willy Wonka movie, because the one we got – which departs wildly from the book in many ways – turns out to be the best adaptation. This is all just my opinion of course, but I’m right.
STTTRRRRTTTT