Willy Wonka Prequel

They should go dark, like really dark. Willey Wonka is a serial killer and has a candy truck. He kidnaps children, stunts their growth on a candy only diet which in turn makes their skin jaundice. He no longer sees them as children and dubs them 'Umpa Lumpas'. The naughty children get turned into his masterpiece candy bar called 'Soylient Green' (Why not..... since they are raising every other franchise from the dead.)

Wonky gets seed money from a guy names Walt who prods him to make a large child friendly theme park. Wonka runs with the idea.......

That's not bad! They might even be able to just transplant Johnny Depp's performance from the Burton movie, add a few new scenes, and "Charlie and the Soylent Green Processing Plant" is practically done.

- - - Updated - - -

Multi-quote broken, can't find a way to quote. You'll have to figure it out. [And WTH does Tapatalk subscribe me to e-mail updates instead of control panel updates, like I have set in site options?? Grrrr.]

... It's not filmmakers who are trying to do this, it's executive suite. $_$ in their eyes like old Warner Bros. cartoon characters.

Well, hopefully they're getting close to running out of things to ransack from the 70s and 80s.
 

This scene was not scripted. Wilder thought it up and in fact demanded it as a condition to play the part. He did not want the audience to know if they could trust Wonka or not.

That's the kind of participation required to make movies great and actors like Gosling do not have it. Nothing he's done comes anywhere near Wilder's resume. And I nearly died when they said he could sing and dance in that article. As far as his singing....he's known as an actor and that pretty much tells that story.

I really hope this movie does not happen. It will be nothing but an empty soulless corporate product.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dangerous to use box office to prove your point, guys: 1971's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was a financial failure -- didn't even cross a million domestic theatrically -- while Burton/August's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in 2005 made 475 million dollars.
 
I'll buy that for a dollar! :lol


They should go dark, like really dark. Willey Wonka is a serial killer and has a candy truck. He kidnaps children, stunts their growth on a candy only diet which in turn makes their skin jaundice. He no longer sees them as children and dubs them 'Umpa Lumpas'. The naughty children get turned into his masterpiece candy bar called 'Soylient Green' (Why not..... since they are raising every other franchise from the dead.)

Wonky gets seed money from a guy names Walt who prods him to make a large child friendly theme park. Wonka runs with the idea.......
 
This is probably going to be an unpopular point of view but the 2005 Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a vastly superior film to the much beloved Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film that seems to be everybody's favorite. I recently read Roald Dhal's book to my son. After we finished the book, we watched both films side by side. The first thing that I noticed was that the original film deviated from the original story quite a bit. They also made up the Candy Man song (and scene) for the film but failed to use any of Roald Dahl's songs from the book. In contrast, the 2005 film was absolutely faithful to the book including all the original songs and original characterizations. Willy Wonka himself in the book was not the kind hearted character that Wilder played. He was really more like Depp played him, an anti-social weirdo. I know that everybody tends to like best the version that they remember from their childhood, but some of those people also feel that no decent music has been produced since the 70s. Sometimes the remakes are really good.
...
That said, I don't think a Willy Wonka prequel is at all necessary or well advised. They would probably do better making Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator (and sending it straight to DVD). That was actually a sequel to the first book although not nearly as good of a story.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
This is probably going to be an unpopular point of view but the 2005 Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a vastly superior film to the much beloved Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film that seems to be everybody's favorite. I recently read Roald Dhal's book to my son. After we finished the book, we watched both films side by side. The first thing that I noticed was that the original film deviated from the original story quite a bit. They also made up the Candy Man song (and scene) for the film but failed to use any of Roald Dahl's songs from the book. In contrast, the 2005 film was absolutely faithful to the book including all the original songs and original characterizations. Willy Wonka himself in the book was not the kind hearted character that Wilder played. He was really more like Depp played him, an anti-social weirdo. I know that everybody tends to like best the version that they remember from their childhood, but some of those people also feel that no decent music has been produced since the 70s. Sometimes the remakes are really good.

You make some excellent points. But I still prefer Gene Wilder's interpretation instead of Dahl's and Depp's and not strictly for nostalgia reasons, although I'm sure that's part of it. I just think it's one of those instances where the character is a more interesting version than the source material — better fleshed out with added dimensions that make him more charismatic and relatable. I mean, Wilder's version was still weird, sheltered, anti-social and deeply cynical about adults. But he also managed to convey his own brand of empathy, wisdom and the kind of humor where you laugh with him, as opposed to at him. I think that's a harder thing to pull off than the Wonka we got in Burton's movie (or even Dahl's book from what I recall).
 
This is probably going to be an unpopular point of view but the 2005 Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a vastly superior film to the much beloved Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film that seems to be everybody's favorite. I recently read Roald Dhal's book to my son. After we finished the book, we watched both films side by side. The first thing that I noticed was that the original film deviated from the original story quite a bit. They also made up the Candy Man song (and scene) for the film but failed to use any of Roald Dahl's songs from the book. In contrast, the 2005 film was absolutely faithful to the book including all the original songs and original characterizations. Willy Wonka himself in the book was not the kind hearted character that Wilder played. He was really more like Depp played him, an anti-social weirdo. I know that everybody tends to like best the version that they remember from their childhood, but some of those people also feel that no decent music has been produced since the 70s. Sometimes the remakes are really good.
...
That said, I don't think a Willy Wonka prequel is at all necessary or well advised. They would probably do better making Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator (and sending it straight to DVD). That was actually a sequel to the first book although not nearly as good of a story.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I think "vastly superior" is extremely exaggerated and untrue. I think the Wilder movie is a much better movie, overall.

One does not need to have slavish accuracy to a book to be a good movie. And sometimes there are good reason for a script writer to trim the fat or change a bit here and there so it flows better in a cinematic way.

The music in Wilder's version was far more magical and fitting the entire experience. To put it simply, Dahl was not a good song writer. His lyrics are bludgeoning and simplistic, and in a cinematic sense only serve to waste time on a lesson we got already by seeing it play out. I mean, if you're a Deep Roy fan you probably enjoyed seeing him do his thing, but otherwise forgettable. Whereas I will never forget songs like "The Candy Man" or "Pure Imagination". Wilder actually sang Pure Imagination, himself.

Wilder's Wonka was not "kind-hearted" for most of the movie. He actually put people in a position to harm themselves and let it happen. Depp didn't really sell the part, he just did his typical "voice" plus a costume. It was fun seeing him do it in POTC1, boring now. If only Burton didn't have Depp on speed-dial.

Favoring WIlder's Wonka is not just being "stuck in the past". It's simply a better made piece of cinema with some of the most memorable songs ever.
 
I will admit that Pure Imagination was a good addition.
The Candy Man song, although now a classic, didn't add anything to the film...and I don't like that song anyway so maybe it just doesn't add anything for me.
Dahl's songs might not be the most amazing but the original film didn't even address them. In the original story, the Oompa Loompas sing a different song customized to each child that screws up. In the original movie, however, those songs are not addressed and the Loompas sing the same alternate song each time. Perhaps they thought the original text was too dark.
 
I will admit that Pure Imagination was a good addition.
The Candy Man song, although now a classic, didn't add anything to the film...and I don't like that song anyway so maybe it just doesn't add anything for me.
Dahl's songs might not be the most amazing but the original film didn't even address them. In the original story, the Oompa Loompas sing a different song customized to each child that screws up. In the original movie, however, those songs are not addressed and the Loompas sing the same alternate song each time. Perhaps they thought the original text was too dark.

The songs are there to entertain in various ways. And Wilder's movies songs do that better by being more musical, magical, and lyrically appealing. Dahl's songs are virtually all about grossing out or shocking you so you don't do some thing or another.

The Wilder Oompa Loompas do sing a different verse for each child. They get across the same message as the Dahl songs in a far shorter time.
 
And I nearly died when they said he could sing and dance in that article. As far as his singing....he's known as an actor and that pretty much tells that story.

Just FYI but thats not entirely accurate. Gosling came from the New Mickey Mouse Club days. Several other well known entertainers came out of this same class and they were all trained to dance, act, and sing. How well any of them do it is up for debate and mostly subjective, but they did receive training to at least be passable at it.
 
Just FYI but thats not entirely accurate. Gosling came from the New Mickey Mouse Club days. Several other well known entertainers came out of this same class and they were all trained to dance, act, and sing. How well any of them do it is up for debate and mostly subjective, but they did receive training to at least be passable at it.

Sure you can train anyone to do something passably. But that's how you get lackluster results. Takes skill + talent to elevate the project.

Hollywood is gonna be Hollywood though. They will pick whoever they think is "hot" or "a draw" and put them up there, just like Depp. And we all saw how Depp did vs Wilder.

I guess the real problem here is that you just can't get a young Gene Wilder to do the prequel. Can't really replicate a performer like that who actually is talented in a bunch of different ways.
 
Wilder's Wonka is a classic. Depp and Burton's is virtually forgotten. End of debate.
It's difficult for a remake to capture the effect that the original had. Often enough, the remake has a lot of merit but is put down because it is not the one people remember and love. I recently watched the remakes of Red Dawn and A Nightmare on Elm Street and enjoyed them both. I wonder what a younger generation thinks when they see an original for the first time AFTER seeing the remake. I'm most cases, I imagine that the newer film speaks more to them and that they find the original antiquated. My young son prefers this Korean Voltron ripoff over the 1984 series. I think this is horrible but I can see how the older animation style might seem cheap and dated in comparison. Hey, I can't be scared by the original Exorcist anymore because it is so comically dated. Anyway, the point I am trying to make here is that remade stories are often good in their own right. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn't forgotten for me. It is now my favorite of the pair. Who knows...maybe the new Top Gun will become a favorite of a new generation much to the horror of their parents. LOL

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
It's difficult for a remake to capture the effect that the original had. Often enough, the remake has a lot of merit but is put down because it is not the one people remember and love. I recently watched the remakes of Red Dawn and A Nightmare on Elm Street and enjoyed them both. I wonder what a younger generation thinks when they see an original for the first time AFTER seeing the remake. I'm most cases, I imagine that the newer film speaks more to them and that they find the original antiquated. My young son prefers this Korean Voltron ripoff over the 1984 series. I think this is horrible but I can see how the older animation style might seem cheap and dated in comparison. Hey, I can't be scared by the original Exorcist anymore because it is so comically dated. Anyway, the point I am trying to make here is that remade stories are often good in their own right. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory isn't forgotten for me. It is now my favorite of the pair. Who knows...maybe the new Top Gun will become a favorite of a new generation much to the horror of their parents. LOL

Along those lines and out of curiosity, did your son seem to enjoy the original movie or the remake better?
 
Last edited:
Wilder didn't play a kind-hearted Wonka …*until the end. In fact the tumble somersault thing with the cane was specifically because Wilder didn't want the audience to know when this man was lying or telling the truth. You're supposed to distrust him. His blow up at Charlie at the end is very emotional to me, knowing what we do at the end. He's looking for a child who sticks to his/her ideals and values even under the duress of temptation, and being yelled at, being told he's failed, accused of bad intentions. Watch the scene, Wilder Wonka just unloads on the kid and yells him out of his office. What does Charlie do. Quietly return the Gobstopper that would make him and his family rich and live in comfort. (And Wilder's quotation is perfect.) (I believe Wilder would tell the story of warning Peter that he was going to be loud, vile, mean, but it was just acting, he didn't mean it. IIRC the boy's eyes teared up anyway. Powerful stuff.)

I still get choked up at that.

Was there ANY scene in the Burton film with that much emotion, that much drama? I don't remember any. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree, Burton's version was closer to the spirit of a Dahl book, this one in particular. Doesn't IMHO make it better. They're pretty much very different ways of telling the story. Both are great. But you hit it square: some of us who saw the Mel Stuart film first hold it dear in our hearts.



I don't think Burton's made a film that moved me in decades. Ed Wood. Um….

I guess the real problem here is that you just can't get a young Gene Wilder to do the prequel. Can't really replicate a performer like that who actually is talented in a bunch of different ways.
Two words: Heath Ledger.

But ... not with us. :( Dammit.
 
Last edited:
Along those lines and out of curiosity, did your son seem to enjoy the original movie or the remake better?
I tried to get an answer from him on this but he was very non-committal. He claims to like them equally. I even played them simultaneously on my two monitors and did my best to keep the stories sync'd. The Burton version definitely drew his attention 90% of the time but he requested a pause whenever he wanted to focus on whatever was happening in the Wilder version (usually during a song). I'm going to call it a toss-up as far as the boy is concerned.
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top