- This topic is empty.
- November 10, 2004 at 5:48 am #36946Danny BurtonParticipant
Straight from johnnydepp-zone.com:
November 10, 2004 at 6:13 am #52748KatieParticipant
I think the only reason I have a problem with this is the hair. It all brings it together into an effeminate, eccentric child molester look.November 10, 2004 at 6:14 am #52749D-BoParticipant
AAWWWESOOOMME!!!November 10, 2004 at 7:57 am #52750AnonymousGuest
I can’t help noticing that the oompa loompa looks like Mr. Soggybottom, Danny DeVito’s clown assistant from “Big Fish”, but without the clown make-up (you can see him without make-up at the cemetary scene).November 10, 2004 at 9:39 am #52751AnonymousGuest
Ha. I hate his hair too.November 10, 2004 at 11:21 am #52752SleepyHelloParticipant
if that is, in fact, the oompa loompa, it is awesome.November 10, 2004 at 1:20 pm #52754rkeaveneyKeymaster
That is in fact the same guy.November 10, 2004 at 1:21 pm #52755rkeaveneyKeymaster
I agree — Depp looks strangely… Asexual.
RyanNovember 10, 2004 at 3:46 pm #52756AnonymousGuest
I’m in a very confused state over this film. If it’s to be a children’s movie, then I think it looks reasonable but a bit old-fashioned (the childrens’ clothes look quite dated – is this part of the storyline? are we in period costume here?). If this is going to be more for the grownups, then Depp fits the creep-factor adequately (sorry, but when he smiles I always look over my shoulder, and yes, he does look a bit like the child-catcher in Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang), and to be honest the pictures of people-doing-nothing could hide all sorts of grotesqueries in the story. Can anyone enlighten me on the studio stance on this? Are we looking at family fun or Burton nightmares?
BluntNovember 10, 2004 at 5:50 pm #52757AnonymousGuest
OOMPA-LOOMPAS!!!!!!!!!November 10, 2004 at 9:12 pm #52758Spider-FanParticipant
You’ll notice that Violet has a DIGITAL watch, so it has to be somewhat close to present-day. As for Wonka, the costume is good, but he looks like Amelie! And his gloves would be cool if they were something like leather, but is skin is visible, so they look more like Latex. I’m not so happy with Violet wither, but I really like Veruca’s look, and Augustus is awesome. As for the Oompa Loompa…I’m not too sure. I thought that they were supposed to be CGI. I’ll have to see.November 10, 2004 at 10:20 pm #52759AnonymousGuest
OOMPA LOOMPAS shoule have orange faces and green hair!!!!!! it totally messes up the traditional movie… it makes me very sad! if they are gonna re-make the movie they should at least keep sum what to the original! its wut most children think of not some space aged midget astronaut!!!!!!!November 10, 2004 at 10:36 pm #52760AnonymousGuest
I like what I see…he has nerds in his cane!!! That’s awesome.
I like Violet, actually, it’s all good. I just got done doing this at community theatre and the little boy that played Augustus looks like the little boy in the pic.
I’m excited.November 11, 2004 at 2:39 am #52762Mr. DantzParticipant
So far, I’ve got to highly disagree with Burton’s vision of the new movie. Uck.November 11, 2004 at 4:55 am #52763AnonymousGuest
burton isn’t go off the original MOVIE. he’s going off the book. he hasn’t seen the original movie. I must say, I think Depp is going to pull this off quite nicely. He made pirates of the carribean, even though his mannerisms were in a gay fashion if you know what I mean. I am soooo excited. And charlie (freddie highmore (good lord!)), is going to be amazing.November 11, 2004 at 7:52 am #52767TenderLumplingParticipant
Hmm. I’d prefer a shot-by-shot remake, myself — à la Psycho (1998). Why even bother with a remake if its not going to be verbatim to the original?November 11, 2004 at 9:15 am #52769Edward BloomParticipant
BECAUSE IT’S NOT A REMAKE !!!
Sorry but some things seem hard to understand…
Psycho is an exception : Van Sant’s film is more an essay about cinema and its evolution than a remake of Hitchcock’s classic, a piece of contemporary art that would have more it’s place in a museum rather than theater.
How the movie is shot and edited is what tells you that this film is a Tim Burton film, a Raimi film or a Jarmusch one. Of course, there are the sets, costumes, actors, etc. but its the ability of the director to tell the story with the right frames, the right movements, in the smartest order that will make the movie a good one or a bad one. Reshooting the same film shot by shot would be pure plagiarism…
De Palma often turned average scripts into true masterpieces, only thanks to his amazing director skills.
Anoher thing : I discovered the original film recently (it’s completely unknown in Europe) and though I perfectly understand that Americans have a special bond with this film, most of you growing with it, it isn’t Barry Lyndon, there are many things that can be improved here…November 11, 2004 at 9:41 am #52770TenderLumplingParticipant
I was being ironic… I think.November 11, 2004 at 10:20 am #52771Edward BloomParticipant
Lol….”irony” is one of the things that’s hard to apply to the Internet (and we don’t have many smileys here to help out). Sorry if you’ve felt offended by my sermon, I won’t do it again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.