Do we know who's playing the fat German kid?
"mmm Choc-o-late"
"Augustus! Noooo!"
I'm gonna save any judgement on the flick until after I see it, but I'm gonna have to agree with Null on this one. That boat scene makes the movie. It's going to be hard to pull it off without looking like they're trying to pull it off.
And of course comparisons are going to be the basis for how good the movie is, which is kind of shitty in a way. Depp isn't going to be playing the same part as Wilder was. He'll probably be a cross between Thompson, Captian Sparrow, and Scissorhands. I can already see his hands flying around and his eyes doing that drugged out thing that they do.
I'm also pretty excited about the Oompa Loompa's. I mean, what kind of Chocolate Factory would it be without crazy little Loompa people suddenly dropping what they are doing and singing about Siamese Cats and doing funny little midget dances? It would be a much less joyful place, I'll tell you that much.
And what about that fact that this is a Burton/Elfman collaboration, or are we not fans? Need I point out Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow... These are all good times.
I suppose there are a few thousand ways to watch the movie: A Depp film, A Burton/Elfman film, a remake, a adaptation from a 1960's novel (where oh where is the BFG?), a Hollywood snuff film? a movie about drugs, chocolate and flying elevators? I guess the question to Mikey, since he brought it up, is what expectations are you holding against the movie? Is it trying to be the book, or the movie, or neither? We obviously can't ask Burton or anyone involved, so we've got to figure it out for ourselves.
Sorry for the long-winded response. I just had my coffee, and am waiting for the ride to show up for weekend camping fun. How about this to chew on over the weekend: What should we hold Chocolate Factory up to? Can it stand as it's own movie, or is it inevitably contrasted with the older version.
A good example is the Batman series. "The second two were shitty compared to the first one". Yeah, that's true, but they weren't TRYING to be like the first one. The only thing they had in common was characters. Everything else about it was in a different vein of storytelling.
Or am I way off here? I gotta go. Have a good 4th, and remember how proud we all are to be Americans in such a shining and untroubled part of history.
J
-to Ben, I'm not ignoring your basketball question, I'm just not an NBA fan. I'm a college hoops guy, which has different rules than NBA, which I don't really care about.
"mmm Choc-o-late"
"Augustus! Noooo!"
I'm gonna save any judgement on the flick until after I see it, but I'm gonna have to agree with Null on this one. That boat scene makes the movie. It's going to be hard to pull it off without looking like they're trying to pull it off.
And of course comparisons are going to be the basis for how good the movie is, which is kind of shitty in a way. Depp isn't going to be playing the same part as Wilder was. He'll probably be a cross between Thompson, Captian Sparrow, and Scissorhands. I can already see his hands flying around and his eyes doing that drugged out thing that they do.
I'm also pretty excited about the Oompa Loompa's. I mean, what kind of Chocolate Factory would it be without crazy little Loompa people suddenly dropping what they are doing and singing about Siamese Cats and doing funny little midget dances? It would be a much less joyful place, I'll tell you that much.
And what about that fact that this is a Burton/Elfman collaboration, or are we not fans? Need I point out Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow... These are all good times.
I suppose there are a few thousand ways to watch the movie: A Depp film, A Burton/Elfman film, a remake, a adaptation from a 1960's novel (where oh where is the BFG?), a Hollywood snuff film? a movie about drugs, chocolate and flying elevators? I guess the question to Mikey, since he brought it up, is what expectations are you holding against the movie? Is it trying to be the book, or the movie, or neither? We obviously can't ask Burton or anyone involved, so we've got to figure it out for ourselves.
Sorry for the long-winded response. I just had my coffee, and am waiting for the ride to show up for weekend camping fun. How about this to chew on over the weekend: What should we hold Chocolate Factory up to? Can it stand as it's own movie, or is it inevitably contrasted with the older version.
A good example is the Batman series. "The second two were shitty compared to the first one". Yeah, that's true, but they weren't TRYING to be like the first one. The only thing they had in common was characters. Everything else about it was in a different vein of storytelling.
Or am I way off here? I gotta go. Have a good 4th, and remember how proud we all are to be Americans in such a shining and untroubled part of history.
J
-to Ben, I'm not ignoring your basketball question, I'm just not an NBA fan. I'm a college hoops guy, which has different rules than NBA, which I don't really care about.
posted by Aden at 9:12 AM
3 Comments:
Ok, Mr. Smith, I'm with you up until a point. And this (partially) ties back into a conversation we had on the Ko Phangan full moon beach.
I couldn't disagree more with your statement that the Batman movies weren't trying to be like the first one, at least in a larger sense. Part of the nature of sequels and remakes is that they are lusty to tap into what was successful (read: $$$) the first time around. Even movies that have no ostensible relationship to each other are phrased in ways that make it a safe investment. Ergo, "it's Die Hard on a submarine" or "at a boys prep school" or "on a bus" or "in Jeremy's pants." Part of the reason it feels like there's so little creativity out of the major studios and why a movie like, say, Napoleon is such a breath of fresh air is because it's like nothing else; IT'S not trying to be like movies before it.
That's not exactly a new thing, of course. It's the byproduct of a top-heavy industry.
But because movies are huge cultural events -- and even those that aren't, aim for that -- they need to be evaluated and treated and critiqued within that context. Because the moviemakers are operating that way, the givers of product are operating that way. So, hell yes, hold the new Chocolate Factory up against the old one. Everyone involved in making it and watching it is going to be predisposed to those biases, both in their personal, intimate relationship with the original piece (for many of us, that sort of giddy childhood escapism that it offered; our actual, specific feelings about the film and the film alone) and in the larger cultural relationship to the piece. Like, how you feel and what you think about the fact that it's a "cult" film, how it serves as an identity marker (at least in a small way) for fans, how the story and film itself has transcended itself and now exists as something larger than the meanings contained within; how it's t-shirts and band names (Veruca Salt I think?) and a device used in sketch parodies; in short, I guess, how it's become a reference and a culture and not "just" a film.
I think no one, really no one can watch a film without these biases. No film just stands alone, floating out there in some void of make believe-land. It's dependent on and interdependent with all of our assumptions about the original (in this case), not to mention the actors and directors previous work and what not.
And yes, Napoleon will be a victim to its own success in that regard.
Where the hell was I going with this?
seraz
no time for full rebute, but where did you get this gem?
"how the story and film itself has transcended itself and now exists as something larger than the meanings contained within"
You lost me at "the"
J
ZING
-seraz
Post a Comment
<< Home