"This isn't the case of one being a remake of the other~but rather both are adaptations from the same source" THANK YOU! I like to always make that distinction with films (or any media for that matter) that are adaptations from another medium. I think we should only classify something as a remake if it's a retelling within the same medium as the original work - (and even then, there's the occasional outlier). It's an important distinction to make, in my opinion. I often see people claiming that "remakes should never happen and film makers should come up with new ideas", and lumping adaptations in with that sentiment, which is ridiculous when you think about how everyone will take something different away from a work. Sure, you don't want to flood the market with different adaptations of the same thing, but I do find it interesting to see different creatives show off their interpretations of the same thing.
in fairness, this isn't a situation of "we had new ideas for the basic premise" but "we are trying to stick as close to the book as we can, while still producing a movie-type story. we're making the bare minimum edits to the plot that really only worked in a kids' book in the 60s. so while they might not be remakes of each other, they are still trying their best to be roughly the same thing.
@@KnightRaymund It's a reference (if that's even an appropriate word) to the @ChangetheChannel movement. If you were a follow of Walker 10-15 years ago and you haven't heard....how haven't you heard? However, in Doug's defense (kinda), he has long since proven himself to be a small-minded, incurious man who reached the limits of his potential LOOOOOOONG ago. It's not remotely hard to imagine he chose not to ask questions, not to doubt, not to even think too much, because it would distract him from making the same joke he had been beating into the ground yet again. 2020 wasn't 2008. And 2024 even less so.
I will admit, while I wasnt a big Wonka fan and still am not, watching the reviews gave me a much better appreciation for both from a film and adaptation perspective. Both I feel can be appreciated and loved in their own way with their own positives/strengths.
I appreciate your evenhanded perspective and your take on the differences between the two films. It truly is, ultimately, the story elements each version wanted to emphasis that cascades throughout them and defines how they adapt the book.
This little run of videos has been a nice walk down memory lane with adaptations of one of my childhood favourite books, so thank you for that Are you going to look at the Wonka film from last year? Or anything about The Great Glass Elevator? That book is a trip in places
One interesting difference is the handling of class with regards to the Salt's. In WWATCF Mr Salt is coded to be a, "self made man," someone from a humble working class background that though grit, determination and I'm sure a bit of luck, had bult the empire he has today. The coding is both his non aristocratic common not posh way of speaking and his manor of dress that clearly lack refitment. He dotting on Verruca in his opening scene is presented as very emotional, "I can't bare to see her like this," it speaks to man who endured want and poverty as a child and carries though scars and so in the process of wanting to ensure his daughter never experiences the hardship he had, has overcorrected with her brattish greed, demands and tantrums, for lack of a better term, triggering to him regarding his own past. This to me makes Mr Salt a more sympathetic character with the misguided way he has raised Verruca coming from a genuine place. The negative impact on Verruca is therefore not simply making her a spoilt brat, but also giving her a sense of entailment to simply be provided, denying her the drive he had though his hardship to improve his situation. This is not to say of course I believe children should have artificial poverty inflicted on them to give them a better work ethic etc, but denying them outrageous extravagance on a whim and making them contribute something, even something as basic as chores so that they are then rewarded can have a great effect in installing the positive values of taking pride in their accomplishments that can be built on as they grow. Compare Mr Salt in CATCF and you have a radically different class dynamic at play. He is very clearly from the aristocratic elite, born with a silver spoon in his moth. He has grown up being provided with everything from his old money family wealth and sees no reason why his daughter should not have the same. This is a lot less powerful in terms of depth regarding Mr Salt as a character and so shifts the emphasis away form him as a person and directing it towards a broader critique of the of the class they were born into, the reassessment you are encouraged to feel is towards their wealth privilege in an abstract social-economic way. It also weakens the message of Verruca being damaged by being spoilt as she is merely acting in a way that is expected of her within the more aristocratic sub-faction of the ruling class abiding by it's cultural norms that she needs to function in without incurring social stigma by being more selfless with money that would challenge the acceptability of the excesses within the social group that should be excepted blindly without question. If Mr Salt from WWATCF is a somewhat sympathetic or at least pitiful man, Mr Salt in CATCF leaves no impression on me at all, he seems utterly clueless and out of touch with nothing really beyond that so I feel nothing for the character.
Interesting point. I’ve always liked Roy Kinnear more out of the two versions of Mr. Salt, mainly because he gets some really funny moments. I never realised that he’s more of a middle class working man who had to earn his empire.
Just wanna say, even though I don't personally like the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" movie (mostly because of the Wonka character and how Burton/Depp/anyone else envisioned him), though I do enjoy some of the songs and sometimes feel guilty liking ANYTHING from the movie based on what I take as the general reaction to it from those in my age group, this sentence is ending anyway. And I also appreciate how you took a thoughtful approach to its re-adaptation, going back to the source. I never read the book, and yet I grew up on the Wilder version and love it to this day, and still greatly prefer it. But you nonetheless really opened my eyes as to why the 2005 movie is the way that it is, from the approach to the songs, to the filmmaker's decision to focus on Wonka and his past. Until now, I dismissed that whole part of the third act; I hadn't realized it was based in something not just rooted in the source material, but in a new, more modern take on the story and Wonka's character, and not just as a way to let Depp Depp more and Burton to do more daddy issues while justifying an excuse to put Christopher Lee front and center in one of his movie. All of my initial reactions to the movie back in 2005 were the absolute worse. I can now both walk back most of those judgments, and thus not dwell in the hatred of so much media (and remakes in particular) as I did so much in my twenties. I've been following your work for over a decade now, Chuck. You've never disappointed me. I'm happy you're still producing, and that you're still giving me greater appreciation for whatever works you touch. Your Trek reviews have been part of the running audio background of my work and play for years, but these newer works (you seriously researched and experimented with making your own chocolate?) make it clear you've always been one of the absolute best of the c.2010 online rant/snark industry. In that you transcended, long ago. And you're still going, better than ever.
Romeo and Julliet with vampires and werewolves... shit that is the first Underworld. Two Houses and all that. Guess I need to have my brain checked now for not noticing that in the 20 something years since that film came out.
Il always have a bias towards the 1971 film, but I can sort of admire both films in their own right. The Wilder film isn’t the best adaptation of the book but leans into the whimsical side (as well as having a lot of great comedy), whilst the Depp version tries to copy most of the book but leans into the darker and surreal side of the story. I will admit that the 1971 version has stood the test of time better and gives us loads of memorable moments, but I can see why some people would like the 2005 film more.
I disagree the 2005 one was 🗑 the 1971 version is way much better that's why the new wonka film is a prequel to the original film 1971 because they knew that version was better
The amusing thing about Sherlock being mentioned in the opening bit is that not only did it have a competitor adapting the same material with that modern day setting twist (and doing it way better), but Sherlock itself counts as one of the examples of 'making it my own' that diminished it in comparison to more faithful retellings (like the Jeremy-Brett led Granada TV version). That said, Moffat at least has made good stuff and has taken some daring swings. Many don't even manage that.
The earlier bit about adaptations interests me because it got me thinking: what do you do when the work you want to adapt is impractical to adapt faithfully? For example, a completely accurate adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde wouldn’t work today because it’s a mystery everyone already knows the answer too. Its twist is so famous that most don’t even realize before reading that it is a twist. How would you do a faithful adaptation of that while not boring the viewers? Or look at Dracula. It’s a collection of diary entries, letters, and newspaper articles strung together to tell a story. That wouldn’t work for film. I think my opinion on the matter comes down to this: Martin has a point about people in Hollywood arrogantly assuming that they can do better than the original. However, that’s not always the case and frequently changes have to be made to better reflect both the medium and the culture. The people in charge should do so with care and respect though, not letting their power go to their heads.
I think it depends on the specifics of the work. You mentioned that Dracula was written as diary entries, aka epistolary POV. The equivalent of that in film is technically Found Footage, although the effect is different, as the diary writer could be mistaken in their account while a camera cannot be. Thus the most practical method would be to start every scene with the narrator speaking the opening lines of the diary entries to give the same impression of an account of the events unfolding. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that's already been done. The important thing is to know what the effect of the choice was, really. As for stories like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde where the twist is so well known, perhaps the only way to do it "faithfully" is to do what Madoka Magical did with Faust. Change the names and hide the twist so that only the most perceptive viewers even realize what you are adapting . Even then, some people will complain about the name changes, but I don't think there is much you can do when a spoiler becomes as well known as "Luke, I am your father." At some point it's only going to come as a surprise for children who have no cultural exposure at all.
There is a famous adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It's The Incredible Hulk. It indeed starts out without treating it as a twist, but rather focuses on the split between the intellectual and the brute.
@@davdia That’s partially true, Stan Lee did take inspiration from that and Frankenstein, but it portrays the Hulk and Banner as two distinct personalities. The original story doesn’t, despite the modern understanding of it. Hyde is a purely physical transformation Jekyll undergoes to indulge in his worst urges. It’s less about duality and more about a man slowly succumbing to a kind of addiction until it destroys him. It’s why trying to do a faithful adaptation is so tantalizing to me. There’s a great character arc there, but to adapt the story faithfully you run into the problem of everyone knowing they’re the same guy.
_Trigun: Reloaded,_ for example, disposes of the "Is he The Stampede?" arc from the beginning of _Trigun._ The show just straight up tells the audience that the blonde in the red coat really _is_ Vash (yes, the famous one with the $$60 billion bounty) at the outset.
I think for movies and tv in particular I think that it's not just the people rewriting not being skilled enough to do their own stories but also they aren't really given the chance to do so, since the big studios seem increasingly unwilling to give untested ideas a chance. I guess some screenwriters just take whatever chance they have to make a story "their own" though I really wish they wouldn't, and also wish they would have the chance to tell their own story
It's a real musical. So it's symmetry. Haven't seen the movie myself, though. Dunno if there's anything to explore, or if it's just more Hollywood Raiders of the Lost IP.
To paraphrase Movie Bob - "It doesn't matter how good of an actor Mike Myers is, or how perfectly he can recite the most serious scenes from Hamlet, if he's doing the Shrek voice at the same time, it's going to be funny and you'll laugh." In my opinion, the same thing applies to Burton's adaptation - it doesn't matter how fantastical the world, or how good the performances/effects/songs/etc., if it starts with the premise that Wonka hates children, then that's a bad angle and I can't get into the movie. This Wonka is not a mad genius, he's very explicitly a victim of childhood abuse, who chooses to perpetrate that abuse onto other children, for ENTIRELY selfish and possibly criminal reasons. And the redemption/reconciliation arc is so thinly sketched, and only really enters the story with any force so late in the narrative, that it only tells me the writers and editors behind this didn't see the messaging of their story clearly enough to fully engage with it. This is not a bad adaptation, this is a bad angle to take on the story. There's a lot to enjoy here, and in fact, a lot that is excellent. It just started with a bad premise, and didn't follow through well enough to indicate they even understood that premise.
indeed. it's not that it's a bad movie, it's just an unpleasant movie about unpleasant subjects. Which is how they interpreted things, and that's pretty understandable. we are way through the looking glass. So they decided to make an unpleasant movie for people who want to come in and groan and walk out going "wow what a bunch of awful people" entire genres are kept alive on women's desire to watch something and be disgusted and horrified by all the evil dangerous men in it. But those of us with taste, and the need to escape from life, would like things to be pleasant.
As someone who read the book as a child before seeing either film, I felt both films were pretty even. Both deviate from the book by similar quantities to me. It has always been interesting to me how much the Tim Burton version is hated by people who only saw the first film.
"There's a difference between 'changing stuff to fit the medium' and 'changing stuff because you think you know better than the creator'". And yet anime and video game localizers think they're the same thing.
There’s also a difference between changing things to better match the culture and knowledge of your viewer base and changing stuff because you think you know better than the original creators. Or are you also going to tell the Japanese they shouldn’t have turned Beast Wars into a comedy?
@@otaking3582 When it aired in Japan. The dubbers decided to make it a full-on wacky comedy, complete with Rattrap smelling what someone at home was having for dinner.
I mean sometimes even the original creators can be just as wrong as say the people who do poor adaptations at times. Take the original animated Disney versions of Beauty and the Beast & Aladdin. 1. BatB- The Beast threatens "Maurice" (Belle/Beauty's nameless dad) with death cause he picked a rose from the garden following some other amenities The Beast (hiding from sight) left him. As people like to bring up, it's a thing of the time where if you are a welcome guest you take what is offered only. Except, the story and other similar versions again don't have the Beast showing himself to offer lodging and good to Maurice or even leaving a note to announce such. Maurice sees food that could have been prepared for the master of the house, but he/she might have left for a moment to deal with something of importance. Kind of sloppy. And the rose which is the basis of sort for the magical flower despite plucking it being punishable by death and the garden aren't say in a gated area to make it clear it's off limits. Disney version has Maurice in desperation (Plus offered by the staff) taking shelter from the cold i.e. trespassing being what sets the Beast off. Plus the now magical flower is in a room he declares to Belle to be off limits. 2. Aladdin's original tale had no wish limits save for summoning a bird known as the Roc, a genie's weakness. So when dealing with the evil vizer, he never wishes to off him or even in toned down adaptations just imprison him even though they are doable and there's no three wish limit. Plus there was also in addition to the genie of the lamp, a ring genie. Yeah, Disney's version makes the singular genie more impactful by removing the ring variant. Carpet I understand is the end result of plans to originally include such.
I don't mind a movie director wanting to make a story their own. Art begets art and that's not a bug, it's a feature. What I do mind, is the director giving the movie the same name as the source material to trick me into watching. Either make a reasonably faithful adaptation, or admit that it's your own creation and trust that it can stand on its own merits.
An interesting question arises how would you communicate the difference to a potential audience? Should the trailer for the movie say “a new adaptation based on the book” so a person like me realizes it’s and might actually consider seeing such a thing? Also if someone says does a new adaptation of The Indian in the Cupboard (I think it was a book) . . . How does someone make it worth watching the new adaptation when the previous one is decent quality and you don’t know if the new one would be?
The first one was really disappointing as an adaptation. The Indian in the Cupboard is a multi book series. As I recall, the movie changed some very fundamental aspects of the world building that would have really borked up the sequels if they'd made any more.
@@Swiftbow I’m sure those points might make it a little more desirable to remake that movie. I was just trying to think of an example other than the Wonka movie. We live in an age when we have tons of access to movies that were made over several decades. We don’t have to wait until it’s rereleased in the theaters again, or it airs on TV, or you buy (borrow or rent) the VHS even. So if you can watch a similar movie easily, why would someone pay extra money to watch a new movie based on the one they’ve seen or could watch for almost no extra cost?
@@seanlavoie2 Well, you've got the Special Edition option. Where the original film maker re-edits the film with modern techniques he didn't have the ability (or at least money) to use in the original film. Or more broadly, you make the new film with visual scope that is relatively inexpensive in 20XX, but wasn't even vaguely possible back in 19XX. Of course, at that point all you're really selling is the visuals, and we've seen what usually happens to a film that cares only about 'looking cool.'
@@seanlavoie2 Well, that all depends on how much people liked the original movie and whether that like extends to curiousity about a new one or not. In the case of Wonka, like Chuck said, it's not really a remake so much as another movie based on the same source material. For myself, I did NOT like the original Wonka, but I loved the book. So when I saw another movie coming out that was said to be more book accurate, I was quite excited. (And remained so, because Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is MUCH closer to the book.) But even in the case of true remakes, sometimes the original was just "eh" or there was more to explore. Like, Brendan Fraser's "The Mummy" is actually a remake of a (I think) 30s version.
@@Swiftbow but my point is how do you market it? My reaction was instantly why would they need another movie? I don’t think it’s based on a book, but . . . I absolutely didn’t like Breakfast at Tiffany's but most think it’s a classic. I still wouldn’t think a new version is warranted. If someone made an inspired by that movie with a different title I think it would make more money than a remake. Because if it was a remake I would avoid it as much as the people who liked the original. And people who haven’t seen it would just go stream the original without even paying for it. How can Hollywood actually succeed with a new adaptation with the same title? Reboot fatigue / Streaming / and a High or Low opinion of the original are very significant bars to success . . . You’re unlikely to convince someone to give something a shot . . . Maybe even if it Batman or something
The Burton version makes Wonka an easy-to-be "I do not want to see that character much" which is not good as the focus character. Compare their introduction Gene's Wonka entrance with the hobbling and roll at the end. It showing the something is odd and hidden him. While Burton was puppets with a bad song and the puppets that caught fire. I do like the ideal that Gene's Wonka lost all trust in other with a person stealing his recipes until Charlie returned the gobstopper. That why some says his pure imagination version has a sad undertone to it.
I detested near the ending of Burton's film, where Wonka is forcing Charlie to choose between living with his family, or living in the Chocolate factory. The idea that a character who seemed a little too close to Michael Jackson, wanted to keep a child as his companion (without the rest of his family) was uncomfortable for me. Also, did Wonka have to have daddy issues? There's a reason some have said the film should be called "Finding Neverland Ranch".
I find it disturbing that the joke criticism of "why are they singing?" Are taken so seriously, and when fiction operates on its own international logic has to explained to full grown adults like they are 5 years old. Maybe pushing immersion in media was a mistake.
It's a bit hypocritical, not to mention a bit late in the game, for Martin to whine about his adaptions, isn't it! After all, he's never bought anything new, just been in the right place, the right time, both in terms of books and screen versions. But I digress. The Book version (before being censored by "sensitivity readers"), remains by far and away the best version in my eyes, followed by the Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Gene Wilder *is* Wonker in my eyes, although Deep Roy, most definitely has taken the spot of the Omppa Loompas(?).
if anything, this emboldens my hatred of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because my reasons are not "I hate it as a poor adaptation of the book", I just hate it as a film. The tone, performances, visuals, dialogue, directing, and unwanted and unnecessary events and character focus are ALL things that I don't gel with at all. The movie may lean far into developing Wonka as a character, but I hate how it was done, and it also doesn't land with me because I also don't like this Wonka as a character. Even if Charlie And The Chocolate Factory was the only movie I knew, the only adaptation of this book that ever existed or was the only one I grew up with.... I am pretty sure I would still hate it just as much. The movie as it is, annoys me on a personal level, and would never sit through it again, willingly.
I'm kind of the opposite. I saw Willy Wonka twice (I think) after having read the book first, and it just annoyed me both times. For one, it's REALLY long. And it just drags. The Oompa Loompa songs are also annoying ear worms, mostly because they're just the SAME song over and over again. (And Grampa Joe was not a very likeable character in that one, either.) Gene Wilder was great as Wonka, but that's about the only real compliment I have for it. As a book fan first, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was just way more enjoyable to me. Though I will say that neither movie really depicted Wonka like the book... wherein he was more like a manic leprechaun in mannerisms and height. (And he's supposed to have a pointy beard!)
"This isn't the case of one being a remake of the other~but rather both are adaptations from the same source" THANK YOU! I like to always make that distinction with films (or any media for that matter) that are adaptations from another medium. I think we should only classify something as a remake if it's a retelling within the same medium as the original work - (and even then, there's the occasional outlier). It's an important distinction to make, in my opinion. I often see people claiming that "remakes should never happen and film makers should come up with new ideas", and lumping adaptations in with that sentiment, which is ridiculous when you think about how everyone will take something different away from a work. Sure, you don't want to flood the market with different adaptations of the same thing, but I do find it interesting to see different creatives show off their interpretations of the same thing.
in fairness, this isn't a situation of "we had new ideas for the basic premise" but "we are trying to stick as close to the book as we can, while still producing a movie-type story. we're making the bare minimum edits to the plot that really only worked in a kids' book in the 60s.
so while they might not be remakes of each other, they are still trying their best to be roughly the same thing.
@@KairuHakubi
Its like how the american Girl with the Dragon Tattoo should not be seen as a remake of the original movie.
@@Amitlu boy for a second I thought there was a really weird crossover toyline with American Girl dolls.
As someone once said: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is about Charlie.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is about Willie Wonka
Aka doug Walker
@@Melvinshermen Yeah, the guy who defend a rapist.
@@cameronheaton9900 what?
@@KnightRaymund It's a reference (if that's even an appropriate word) to the @ChangetheChannel movement. If you were a follow of Walker 10-15 years ago and you haven't heard....how haven't you heard?
However, in Doug's defense (kinda), he has long since proven himself to be a small-minded, incurious man who reached the limits of his potential LOOOOOOONG ago. It's not remotely hard to imagine he chose not to ask questions, not to doubt, not to even think too much, because it would distract him from making the same joke he had been beating into the ground yet again. 2020 wasn't 2008. And 2024 even less so.
@@andrewklang809"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought."
I will admit, while I wasnt a big Wonka fan and still am not, watching the reviews gave me a much better appreciation for both from a film and adaptation perspective. Both I feel can be appreciated and loved in their own way with their own positives/strengths.
I appreciate your evenhanded perspective and your take on the differences between the two films. It truly is, ultimately, the story elements each version wanted to emphasis that cascades throughout them and defines how they adapt the book.
I can't believe you managed to make me reconsider my opinion on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
This little run of videos has been a nice walk down memory lane with adaptations of one of my childhood favourite books, so thank you for that
Are you going to look at the Wonka film from last year? Or anything about The Great Glass Elevator? That book is a trip in places
One interesting difference is the handling of class with regards to the Salt's.
In WWATCF Mr Salt is coded to be a, "self made man," someone from a humble working class background that though grit, determination and I'm sure a bit of luck, had bult the empire he has today. The coding is both his non aristocratic common not posh way of speaking and his manor of dress that clearly lack refitment. He dotting on Verruca in his opening scene is presented as very emotional, "I can't bare to see her like this," it speaks to man who endured want and poverty as a child and carries though scars and so in the process of wanting to ensure his daughter never experiences the hardship he had, has overcorrected with her brattish greed, demands and tantrums, for lack of a better term, triggering to him regarding his own past.
This to me makes Mr Salt a more sympathetic character with the misguided way he has raised Verruca coming from a genuine place.
The negative impact on Verruca is therefore not simply making her a spoilt brat, but also giving her a sense of entailment to simply be provided, denying her the drive he had though his hardship to improve his situation. This is not to say of course I believe children should have artificial poverty inflicted on them to give them a better work ethic etc, but denying them outrageous extravagance on a whim and making them contribute something, even something as basic as chores so that they are then rewarded can have a great effect in installing the positive values of taking pride in their accomplishments that can be built on as they grow.
Compare Mr Salt in CATCF and you have a radically different class dynamic at play. He is very clearly from the aristocratic elite, born with a silver spoon in his moth. He has grown up being provided with everything from his old money family wealth and sees no reason why his daughter should not have the same.
This is a lot less powerful in terms of depth regarding Mr Salt as a character and so shifts the emphasis away form him as a person and directing it towards a broader critique of the of the class they were born into, the reassessment you are encouraged to feel is towards their wealth privilege in an abstract social-economic way.
It also weakens the message of Verruca being damaged by being spoilt as she is merely acting in a way that is expected of her within the more aristocratic sub-faction of the ruling class abiding by it's cultural norms that she needs to function in without incurring social stigma by being more selfless with money that would challenge the acceptability of the excesses within the social group that should be excepted blindly without question.
If Mr Salt from WWATCF is a somewhat sympathetic or at least pitiful man, Mr Salt in CATCF leaves no impression on me at all, he seems utterly clueless and out of touch with nothing really beyond that so I feel nothing for the character.
Interesting point. I’ve always liked Roy Kinnear more out of the two versions of Mr. Salt, mainly because he gets some really funny moments. I never realised that he’s more of a middle class working man who had to earn his empire.
Just wanna say, even though I don't personally like the "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" movie (mostly because of the Wonka character and how Burton/Depp/anyone else envisioned him), though I do enjoy some of the songs and sometimes feel guilty liking ANYTHING from the movie based on what I take as the general reaction to it from those in my age group, this sentence is ending anyway. And I also appreciate how you took a thoughtful approach to its re-adaptation, going back to the source. I never read the book, and yet I grew up on the Wilder version and love it to this day, and still greatly prefer it. But you nonetheless really opened my eyes as to why the 2005 movie is the way that it is, from the approach to the songs, to the filmmaker's decision to focus on Wonka and his past. Until now, I dismissed that whole part of the third act; I hadn't realized it was based in something not just rooted in the source material, but in a new, more modern take on the story and Wonka's character, and not just as a way to let Depp Depp more and Burton to do more daddy issues while justifying an excuse to put Christopher Lee front and center in one of his movie. All of my initial reactions to the movie back in 2005 were the absolute worse. I can now both walk back most of those judgments, and thus not dwell in the hatred of so much media (and remakes in particular) as I did so much in my twenties.
I've been following your work for over a decade now, Chuck. You've never disappointed me. I'm happy you're still producing, and that you're still giving me greater appreciation for whatever works you touch. Your Trek reviews have been part of the running audio background of my work and play for years, but these newer works (you seriously researched and experimented with making your own chocolate?) make it clear you've always been one of the absolute best of the c.2010 online rant/snark industry. In that you transcended, long ago. And you're still going, better than ever.
Your analysis of the 2005 film blew my mind
Romeo and Julliet with vampires and werewolves... shit that is the first Underworld.
Two Houses and all that. Guess I need to have my brain checked now for not noticing that in the 20 something years since that film came out.
Il always have a bias towards the 1971 film, but I can sort of admire both films in their own right. The Wilder film isn’t the best adaptation of the book but leans into the whimsical side (as well as having a lot of great comedy), whilst the Depp version tries to copy most of the book but leans into the darker and surreal side of the story. I will admit that the 1971 version has stood the test of time better and gives us loads of memorable moments, but I can see why some people would like the 2005 film more.
I disagree the 2005 one was 🗑 the 1971 version is way much better that's why the new wonka film is a prequel to the original film 1971 because they knew that version was better
The amusing thing about Sherlock being mentioned in the opening bit is that not only did it have a competitor adapting the same material with that modern day setting twist (and doing it way better), but Sherlock itself counts as one of the examples of 'making it my own' that diminished it in comparison to more faithful retellings (like the Jeremy-Brett led Granada TV version).
That said, Moffat at least has made good stuff and has taken some daring swings. Many don't even manage that.
Now I wonder if anyone requested from Chuck, a treatment like this for Frankenstein
The earlier bit about adaptations interests me because it got me thinking: what do you do when the work you want to adapt is impractical to adapt faithfully? For example, a completely accurate adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde wouldn’t work today because it’s a mystery everyone already knows the answer too. Its twist is so famous that most don’t even realize before reading that it is a twist. How would you do a faithful adaptation of that while not boring the viewers?
Or look at Dracula. It’s a collection of diary entries, letters, and newspaper articles strung together to tell a story. That wouldn’t work for film.
I think my opinion on the matter comes down to this: Martin has a point about people in Hollywood arrogantly assuming that they can do better than the original. However, that’s not always the case and frequently changes have to be made to better reflect both the medium and the culture. The people in charge should do so with care and respect though, not letting their power go to their heads.
I think it depends on the specifics of the work. You mentioned that Dracula was written as diary entries, aka epistolary POV. The equivalent of that in film is technically Found Footage, although the effect is different, as the diary writer could be mistaken in their account while a camera cannot be. Thus the most practical method would be to start every scene with the narrator speaking the opening lines of the diary entries to give the same impression of an account of the events unfolding. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that's already been done. The important thing is to know what the effect of the choice was, really.
As for stories like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde where the twist is so well known, perhaps the only way to do it "faithfully" is to do what Madoka Magical did with Faust. Change the names and hide the twist so that only the most perceptive viewers even realize what you are adapting . Even then, some people will complain about the name changes, but I don't think there is much you can do when a spoiler becomes as well known as "Luke, I am your father." At some point it's only going to come as a surprise for children who have no cultural exposure at all.
There is a famous adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It's The Incredible Hulk. It indeed starts out without treating it as a twist, but rather focuses on the split between the intellectual and the brute.
@@davdia That’s partially true, Stan Lee did take inspiration from that and Frankenstein, but it portrays the Hulk and Banner as two distinct personalities. The original story doesn’t, despite the modern understanding of it. Hyde is a purely physical transformation Jekyll undergoes to indulge in his worst urges. It’s less about duality and more about a man slowly succumbing to a kind of addiction until it destroys him. It’s why trying to do a faithful adaptation is so tantalizing to me. There’s a great character arc there, but to adapt the story faithfully you run into the problem of everyone knowing they’re the same guy.
_Trigun: Reloaded,_ for example, disposes of the "Is he The Stampede?" arc from the beginning of _Trigun._ The show just straight up tells the audience that the blonde in the red coat really _is_ Vash (yes, the famous one with the $$60 billion bounty) at the outset.
I think for movies and tv in particular I think that it's not just the people rewriting not being skilled enough to do their own stories but also they aren't really given the chance to do so, since the big studios seem increasingly unwilling to give untested ideas a chance. I guess some screenwriters just take whatever chance they have to make a story "their own" though I really wish they wouldn't, and also wish they would have the chance to tell their own story
Why did you use the Star Trek open?
Which raises the question. Will Chuck look at 'Wonka'?
I'm holding out for the Willy Wonka Experience, Glasgow review
Or Tom and Jerry: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory?
It's a real musical. So it's symmetry.
Haven't seen the movie myself, though. Dunno if there's anything to explore, or if it's just more Hollywood Raiders of the Lost IP.
Give him money to do so.
To paraphrase Movie Bob - "It doesn't matter how good of an actor Mike Myers is, or how perfectly he can recite the most serious scenes from Hamlet, if he's doing the Shrek voice at the same time, it's going to be funny and you'll laugh."
In my opinion, the same thing applies to Burton's adaptation - it doesn't matter how fantastical the world, or how good the performances/effects/songs/etc., if it starts with the premise that Wonka hates children, then that's a bad angle and I can't get into the movie. This Wonka is not a mad genius, he's very explicitly a victim of childhood abuse, who chooses to perpetrate that abuse onto other children, for ENTIRELY selfish and possibly criminal reasons. And the redemption/reconciliation arc is so thinly sketched, and only really enters the story with any force so late in the narrative, that it only tells me the writers and editors behind this didn't see the messaging of their story clearly enough to fully engage with it. This is not a bad adaptation, this is a bad angle to take on the story. There's a lot to enjoy here, and in fact, a lot that is excellent. It just started with a bad premise, and didn't follow through well enough to indicate they even understood that premise.
indeed. it's not that it's a bad movie, it's just an unpleasant movie about unpleasant subjects. Which is how they interpreted things, and that's pretty understandable. we are way through the looking glass. So they decided to make an unpleasant movie for people who want to come in and groan and walk out going "wow what a bunch of awful people" entire genres are kept alive on women's desire to watch something and be disgusted and horrified by all the evil dangerous men in it. But those of us with taste, and the need to escape from life, would like things to be pleasant.
Huh, I never thought about that. If Wonka hates kids, why would kids give him a chance?
As someone who read the book as a child before seeing either film, I felt both films were pretty even. Both deviate from the book by similar quantities to me. It has always been interesting to me how much the Tim Burton version is hated by people who only saw the first film.
Film adaptations are an effort to do that three-course meal chewing gum. Some of them just get rid of the blueberry dessert and thus avoid problems.
"There's a difference between 'changing stuff to fit the medium' and 'changing stuff because you think you know better than the creator'".
And yet anime and video game localizers think they're the same thing.
There’s also a difference between changing things to better match the culture and knowledge of your viewer base and changing stuff because you think you know better than the original creators. Or are you also going to tell the Japanese they shouldn’t have turned Beast Wars into a comedy?
@@magnusprime962 When the hell did that happen?
@@otaking3582 When it aired in Japan. The dubbers decided to make it a full-on wacky comedy, complete with Rattrap smelling what someone at home was having for dinner.
I mean sometimes even the original creators can be just as wrong as say the people who do poor adaptations at times. Take the original animated Disney versions of Beauty and the Beast & Aladdin.
1. BatB- The Beast threatens "Maurice" (Belle/Beauty's nameless dad) with death cause he picked a rose from the garden following some other amenities The Beast (hiding from sight) left him.
As people like to bring up, it's a thing of the time where if you are a welcome guest you take what is offered only.
Except, the story and other similar versions again don't have the Beast showing himself to offer lodging and good to Maurice or even leaving a note to announce such.
Maurice sees food that could have been prepared for the master of the house, but he/she might have left for a moment to deal with something of importance. Kind of sloppy.
And the rose which is the basis of sort for the magical flower despite plucking it being punishable by death and the garden aren't say in a gated area to make it clear it's off limits.
Disney version has Maurice in desperation (Plus offered by the staff) taking shelter from the cold i.e. trespassing being what sets the Beast off.
Plus the now magical flower is in a room he declares to Belle to be off limits.
2. Aladdin's original tale had no wish limits save for summoning a bird known as the Roc, a genie's weakness.
So when dealing with the evil vizer, he never wishes to off him or even in toned down adaptations just imprison him even though they are doable and there's no three wish limit.
Plus there was also in addition to the genie of the lamp, a ring genie. Yeah, Disney's version makes the singular genie more impactful by removing the ring variant. Carpet I understand is the end result of plans to originally include such.
@@magnusprime962
The whole TF brand in Japan is in an odd place when you get down to it.
I don't mind a movie director wanting to make a story their own. Art begets art and that's not a bug, it's a feature.
What I do mind, is the director giving the movie the same name as the source material to trick me into watching. Either make a reasonably faithful adaptation, or admit that it's your own creation and trust that it can stand on its own merits.
An interesting question arises how would you communicate the difference to a potential audience?
Should the trailer for the movie say “a new adaptation based on the book” so a person like me realizes it’s and might actually consider seeing such a thing?
Also if someone says does a new adaptation of The Indian in the Cupboard (I think it was a book) . . . How does someone make it worth watching the new adaptation when the previous one is decent quality and you don’t know if the new one would be?
The first one was really disappointing as an adaptation. The Indian in the Cupboard is a multi book series. As I recall, the movie changed some very fundamental aspects of the world building that would have really borked up the sequels if they'd made any more.
@@Swiftbow I’m sure those points might make it a little more desirable to remake that movie. I was just trying to think of an example other than the Wonka movie.
We live in an age when we have tons of access to movies that were made over several decades. We don’t have to wait until it’s rereleased in the theaters again, or it airs on TV, or you buy (borrow or rent) the VHS even.
So if you can watch a similar movie easily, why would someone pay extra money to watch a new movie based on the one they’ve seen or could watch for almost no extra cost?
@@seanlavoie2 Well, you've got the Special Edition option. Where the original film maker re-edits the film with modern techniques he didn't have the ability (or at least money) to use in the original film.
Or more broadly, you make the new film with visual scope that is relatively inexpensive in 20XX, but wasn't even vaguely possible back in 19XX.
Of course, at that point all you're really selling is the visuals, and we've seen what usually happens to a film that cares only about 'looking cool.'
@@seanlavoie2 Well, that all depends on how much people liked the original movie and whether that like extends to curiousity about a new one or not.
In the case of Wonka, like Chuck said, it's not really a remake so much as another movie based on the same source material. For myself, I did NOT like the original Wonka, but I loved the book. So when I saw another movie coming out that was said to be more book accurate, I was quite excited. (And remained so, because Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is MUCH closer to the book.)
But even in the case of true remakes, sometimes the original was just "eh" or there was more to explore. Like, Brendan Fraser's "The Mummy" is actually a remake of a (I think) 30s version.
@@Swiftbow but my point is how do you market it? My reaction was instantly why would they need another movie?
I don’t think it’s based on a book, but . . . I absolutely didn’t like Breakfast at Tiffany's but most think it’s a classic. I still wouldn’t think a new version is warranted.
If someone made an inspired by that movie with a different title I think it would make more money than a remake. Because if it was a remake I would avoid it as much as the people who liked the original. And people who haven’t seen it would just go stream the original without even paying for it.
How can Hollywood actually succeed with a new adaptation with the same title?
Reboot fatigue / Streaming / and a High or Low opinion of the original are very significant bars to success . . .
You’re unlikely to convince someone to give something a shot . . . Maybe even if it Batman or something
The Burton version makes Wonka an easy-to-be "I do not want to see that character much" which is not good as the focus character. Compare their introduction Gene's Wonka entrance with the hobbling and roll at the end. It showing the something is odd and hidden him. While Burton was puppets with a bad song and the puppets that caught fire.
I do like the ideal that Gene's Wonka lost all trust in other with a person stealing his recipes until Charlie returned the gobstopper. That why some says his pure imagination version has a sad undertone to it.
I detested near the ending of Burton's film, where Wonka is forcing Charlie to choose between living with his family, or living in the Chocolate factory. The idea that a character who seemed a little too close to Michael Jackson, wanted to keep a child as his companion (without the rest of his family) was uncomfortable for me. Also, did Wonka have to have daddy issues? There's a reason some have said the film should be called "Finding Neverland Ranch".
I unironically would like a horror movie based on the book, also an anti capitalist satire by Boots Riley
Thrill me.
I also have to admit that I prefer the movie with Gene Wilder in it.
I find it disturbing that the joke criticism of "why are they singing?" Are taken so seriously, and when fiction operates on its own international logic has to explained to full grown adults like they are 5 years old.
Maybe pushing immersion in media was a mistake.
Young George Clark Edward Harris Steven
It's a bit hypocritical, not to mention a bit late in the game, for Martin to whine about his adaptions, isn't it!
After all, he's never bought anything new, just been in the right place, the right time, both in terms of books and screen versions. But I digress.
The Book version (before being censored by "sensitivity readers"), remains by far and away the best version in my eyes, followed by the Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Gene Wilder *is* Wonker in my eyes, although Deep Roy, most definitely has taken the spot of the Omppa Loompas(?).
if anything, this emboldens my hatred of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory because my reasons are not "I hate it as a poor adaptation of the book", I just hate it as a film. The tone, performances, visuals, dialogue, directing, and unwanted and unnecessary events and character focus are ALL things that I don't gel with at all. The movie may lean far into developing Wonka as a character, but I hate how it was done, and it also doesn't land with me because I also don't like this Wonka as a character. Even if Charlie And The Chocolate Factory was the only movie I knew, the only adaptation of this book that ever existed or was the only one I grew up with.... I am pretty sure I would still hate it just as much. The movie as it is, annoys me on a personal level, and would never sit through it again, willingly.
I'm kind of the opposite. I saw Willy Wonka twice (I think) after having read the book first, and it just annoyed me both times. For one, it's REALLY long. And it just drags. The Oompa Loompa songs are also annoying ear worms, mostly because they're just the SAME song over and over again. (And Grampa Joe was not a very likeable character in that one, either.) Gene Wilder was great as Wonka, but that's about the only real compliment I have for it.
As a book fan first, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was just way more enjoyable to me. Though I will say that neither movie really depicted Wonka like the book... wherein he was more like a manic leprechaun in mannerisms and height. (And he's supposed to have a pointy beard!)