| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| WILLY WONKA! http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4194 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | Acekirby [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: Yeah. He has just the right kind of creepiness. The only person who could have played it better was on trial recently.
I was going to say that, but my judgement got the better of me. The costume Depp is wearing does remind me of...that guy... |
|
| Author: | Beyond the Grave [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I want to see what the Oompa-Loompas look like, the Oompa-Loompas freakin awesome. |
|
| Author: | The Noid [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I know what they look like. Theyre like, Mexican normal coloreed Midgets in bright flashy jumpsuits. No foolin. |
|
| Author: | InterruptorJones [ Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Beyond the Grave wrote: I want to see what the Oompa-Loompas look like, the Oompa-Loompas freakin awesome.
Um. Why don't you just watch the trailer? Or read the IMDb page. They're all played by Deep Roy. |
|
| Author: | AgentSeethroo [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Noid wrote: I know what they look like. Theyre like, Mexican normal coloreed Midgets in bright flashy jumpsuits.
No foolin. Mexican normal colored midgets? Is this a contest to be as politically incorrect as possible? Not that I care... It was actually one Indian guy. Not like native american, but India indian. |
|
| Author: | Acekirby [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Apparently they got rid of the old song "Oompah-Loompah, Dompaty Do" song, and replaced it with more complex songs. Though I don't know why. The old song owned. |
|
| Author: | racerx_is_alive [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Acekirby wrote: Apparently they got rid of the old song "Oompah-Loompah, Dompaty Do" song, and replaced it with more complex songs. Though I don't know why. The old song owned.
It took me a while to figure out that they meant to remake the book and not the original movie. I think that's why they aren't bothering to do much anything like the earlier version. |
|
| Author: | Black Metal [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In the credits it said that they used lyrics by Rold Dahl. So apparently those were the real songs. I liked the movie a lot. I think it was pretty good for a remake. |
|
| Author: | Marshmallow Roast [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 8:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I watched it, but Johnny Dip looked downright wrong. Terrible haircut, terrible "unearthly pale" complexion, and he was just... wrong. The only time he's ever succeeded in looking good is in P's of the C. The movie was pretty good, the songs were very catchy, and the movie theater starting selling Wonka Bars, which are REALLY good. If someone else (I agree on Jim Carrey) played Willy Wonka, it would have been slightly better. (The opening sequence was a-prooty cool.) |
|
| Author: | iKipapa [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | I really want to see this movie. |
I want to see this movie. I thought it wouldn't be very good when I first saw an ad for it, but now, after hearing what other peolples have said, I want to go see the movie. |
|
| Author: | The Noid [ Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Who the heck is Johnny Dip??? On the contratry, the songs were the same in parts, but Violet Beuragards was very dif...maybe its because I couldnt hear much from what they were saying...Violets was techno, Veruca reminded me of Sunny And Cher songs, and Mikes is strangely a lot like the lime In The Coconut comercials.... By normal colored, i mean not orange. |
|
| Author: | Queenie-C [ Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The new film is meant to follow the book, kids. Try reading it. It's a good one. (Except for the father-figure thing, which was all about Burton's work as a whole. Tim Burton always has to have a monster in his films: some sort of eccentric/lonely/exoticized outsider who is somehow different from the "norm." In film majorspeak, we call that "the other." Learn to love this term. Impress your film college friends, AND your momma. Also, given the fact that this is Johnny Depp's typical role in the star system -- eccentric outsider -- he and Burton fit together like-a the bacon and eggs.) Besides. Johnny Depp could have a paper bag over his head and I'd still ... how to put this mildly enough ... um, find him extremely attractive. He is an insanely talented fellow. I salute him. |
|
| Author: | Clever Danielle [ Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, Johnny Depp can do absolutely no wrong in my book. He's a tad like Jack White in that respect. Speaking of Jack White... 
People go on and on with their Michael Jackson comparisons. I see it a different way. Oh, yeah, and for the record, I saw the movie and it was great. Tim Burton forever. |
|
| Author: | Queenie-C [ Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Clever Danielle wrote: Very, very rawr. I am in complete agreement with you, my savvy HR sister. I also feel that anyone who HAS drawn upon the Jackson comparison is simply not thinking all that deeply about what Burton does with his films -- that's called "auteur criticism," by-the-by, when you examine certain themes and styles and moods in a director's work as a whole. Basically, Burton looooves "the other," and he's always focusing on them. His characters are almost always others, complete with old-fashioned/eccentric clothing: Edward Scissorhands was a lonely monster set against a world of endless suburbia, The Nightmare Before Christmas involved an eccentric Halloween world set against a world of regular old Christmases, Ed Wood was an eccentric transvestite whose bad-but-mad monster films were made fun of by the regular old masses. Heck, even Burton's Batman clearly focused on the character's noir-type "otherness:" an eccentric guy in a batsuit who is always dealing with monsters and yet, like a monster himself, is always isolated from the crazy-normal masses in his big old batcave. And see, Depp's Wonka has all these themes as well. The factory is his lonely monster castle. He's eccentric. He's a little bit off. He's clearly been eating candy for the greater part of his life -- who wouldn't be weird because of that? As a child, Burton's Wonka is shown trapped in a prison of disfiguring braces -- I mean, what more pitiable monster-character imagery can you HAVE? But in Burton's work, these very things make Wonka great. Because he's NOT normal. Ergo, he's not boring. He's unique. Burton and Depp's monster-others are different from most movie monsters, because rather than using them to say, "Oh god, scary, run away," they are meant to be unique and audience-beloved and interesting. Celebrating the weird. That's what both Depp and Burton do. To me, that's just plain cool. I love the book. I like the first film. I like this film. Good times, good times. Guess I didn't study this film stuff for nothing. |
|
| Author: | FireBird [ Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Worst headline ever. |
|
| Author: | Clever Danielle [ Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
FireBird wrote:
I laughed out loud (for real!) when I saw that. Funny stuff, man! |
|
| Author: | Acekirby [ Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
FireBird wrote:
Oh my...that's not even funny. I've seen some bad headlines in my day, but that "takes the cake". 
|
|
| Author: | Dark Grapefruit [ Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh, Queenie, I couldn't have said it better myself. I thought the scenes with Wonka as a kid were definitely the most Burton-esque of the film. He did a really good job of making a lovable, pitiable character. |
|
| Author: | Swooshoman [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
yeh, great movie. Definitely better than the first, which, in my book, does not count as a classic, but as a pile of crap... No offense to nayone who liked it, of course. This one was much truer to the book, as well as being less creepy, although the trailers made it seem darker than the other. Trailers are ver misleading, though. Jonny Depp did not take his shirt off- for once. I heard a group of fanirls moaning about this as I walked out... |
|
| Author: | Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
this was a great movie! i loved it! and im gonna buy that jacket that Johnny Depp wore in it, that looked awesome and is the next big thing in fashion, YEAH! |
|
| Author: | Einoo T. Spork [ Tue Jul 26, 2005 3:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
REVIVE'D! Queenie-C wrote: Johnny Depp could have a paper bag over his head and I'd still ... how to put this mildly enough ... um, find him extremely attractive. You should find this interesting. Ali'sBrother (Swooshoman) wrote: Jonny Depp did not take his shirt off- for once. I heard a group of fanirls moaning about this as I walked out...
Yeah, I loved how they took advantage of that lech factor in the movie (you know, the part about the endorphins). I just saw it today, and I agree that it was better than the original. I loved the tribute to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I find it rather interesting that his father was a dentist. All those braces and crap on Wonka's face was almost disturbing, which makes sense because, well, it IS a Burton film. The animatronic "Small World"-style singers catching on fire was pure Burton. I also like how they snuck a nod to The Beatles in there. Very wacky and occaisionally dark, but not as dark as I thought it would be. And look at these reviews: "Children and adults alike will jam lines to movie houses in North America and overseas to acquire golden tickets for this audience-pleaser." -Kirk Honeycutt "Burton turns out to be the ideal filmmaker for this deliciously bizarre yarn." -David Sterritt "Whatever flaws it has, this sweet and sour morality tale is a beautifully crafted and bizarrely amusing delight. " -John Wirt (WIRT! WIRT! WIRT!) "A yummy masterpiece." -Betty Jo Tucker "Hootie Hoo!" -Ike Turner Go see it. |
|
| Author: | Himan [ Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Einoo the Spork wrote:
I did. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|