I see many people have seen both stories of the Chocolate Factory story. Which movie do you like better? Why? I'm sure most of the people who posted reviews for Wilder's Wonka will prefer him, whereas those who posted reviews for Depp's Wonka will prefer him. Or there may be things you prefer about each one. I realize Mel Stuart's Chocolate Factory is probably the "more familiar" and Tim Burton's Chocolate Factory is "more true to the book" (though there were some creative liberties) and more technologically "correct." Anyways, let me know what you think.
I like the old Wonka movie better. Depp did a great job but frankly yes...he was a little creepy. I think they should have made him more sarcastic or something. Gene Wilder was quirky but still seemed like he was "normal" and funny. The new one is definately based more on the book (except for the subplot with Wonka's dad) because I've recently read the book...
I have seen both, and I like both Gene Wilder and Johnny Depp in various movies.
That said... I liked the newer Charlie & the Chocolate Factory better when taken as a whole, but prefer Gene Wilder's performance. In a perfect world, Gene Wilder in the new movie (replacing Depp) would be the ideal version in my opinion.
If you've seen both then the answer is real simple. Gene Wilder's is the best. If you've only seen Tim Burton's than you'll still know that the original is the best. If you've seen Burton's and stuck your head down a sewer drain you'll prefer the sewer drain.
Wow, where do I begin?? The original Willy Wonka movie is better, I think, for one reason, the songs are better! No "Pure Imagination" in the new version? They could have at least redone it in a modern way. But the boat ride was FAR better in the newer one, and so was the bratty girl getting dragged down the drain by those cute little squirrels. And I also thought the newer computer-generated Oompa-loompas were actually better, but I still prefer the original ANY DAY over that weird, androgenous Johnny Depp version.
I actually preferred Depp's Wonka. He caught the essence of what what Wonka always appeared to me in the books - strange, sly, good-hearted, with a dash of creepy. I mean, the man lives in a candy factory and hasn't been outside for more than a decade. He would definitely be eccentric, and not in a fatherly way. I thought that the Depp-Wonka's complete lack of people communication skills, and nearly a casual disregard for the children's safety was far more accurate and hilarious. They just overdid it with the makeup.
Wilder's Wonka was just bipolar. He didn't appeal to me in the slightest. I remember watching the original when I was nine and feeling indifferent. I think most people's love of the original stems more from nostalgia than anything else.
Sorry Liz, you are in the serious minority here. This was probably Gene Wilder's crowning role. A role he owned. Johnny Depp tried to do something different in the role as to not just mimic Wilder. It just didnt work. He looked like he was channeling Michael Jackson instead. Too bad you didnt get it with Wilder, when you were 9 and now almost 40 years later! Everyone else did and still does. Time to look in the mirror and say, why dont I get it. It's you!
I don't think the problem was with Depp. The writing in the second one was awful. His lines were terrible. I appreciated some closeness to the book, but couldn't get past the 1 oompa loompa that they just photo shopped in for the entire movie. They couldn't afford to pay more than one small person?
No offense Mr. Gside, but I don't think the writing in the new one is nearly as messed up as some numb nuts want you to believe. To the people who think the new one is not as close to the book as the critics say due to the new subplot, that is just nit-picking, and me, the critics, and the other true fans who agree with us did not nit-pick!