Notices
Results 1 to 57 of 57

Thread: A SCRUMDIDILIUMPTIOUS OPPORTUNITY

  1. #1 A SCRUMDIDILIUMPTIOUS OPPORTUNITY 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Greetings.

    And welcome to my delusional pretensions of a chocolate factory.

    Now, I’m fully aware that 8 in 10 of you would rather be off in a chat box or an Xbox or an idiot box than sit here reading a pile of pretentious mania but you’ve been given a chance of a lifetime.

    You, my friend, are about to embark on a trip of your own- all you need is 93 percent imagination, 6 percent curiosity, 4 percent patience, and 2 percent butterscotch ripple.

    Which is why this is going to be long on purpose. Very long.

    I therefore invite you to my factory, here, where the nouns are the strawberry taffy sticking out from the side of a gingerbread verb, the adjectives a cluster of gumballs spilling all over the grassy mint of my sentences where every last dot on each ‘i’ is a chocolate covered clue as to the fabulous things that await you.

    To the lucky winners, of whom 3 I myself will judge as winners according to criteria already written out in a secret contract as windy as the very Constitution upon which your little countries are founded, will go a secret surprise never before seen on the face of planet Forum.

    Ever.

    All you have to do, fellow wanderers, is make it all the way to my last sentence. That’s it.

    From there, yours truly swears- hope to die and stick a needle in my conjuctivitic eye, swear- to pick the lucky winners and give them their fair prize. The rest of you will be destroyed.

    Got it? Any questions? Excellent. On we go! “We have so much time and so little to see.

    Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.”

    That line sound familiar?
    Its from Mel Stuart’s movie adaptation of Roal Dahl’s 1964 book “Charlie and the Chocolate factory”.
    It first debuted in 1971 and has since then become a cult classic, included in almost every Gallup poll of “Top Ten Best Movies Ever”
    Which isn’t saying much; you find it bunched up with “Star Wars” which is, frankly, a noisy intergalactic tabloid for noisy intergalactic nerds.

    No, no, no my dears...Willy Wonka was a tale as timeless and everlasting as his Gobstoppers and it does not matter a lick how old or young you are.

    Gene Wilder, who played Wonka, embodied a sadism so cleverly hidden it smelled of vanilla. And at every turn, every phrase, and every room in that chocolate madness was something as alluring as it was repulsive.

    That was the secret.

    It’s a secret wholly missing in this remake that stars Johny Depp as the Wonka instead. A remake which one sat through with an open mouth among millions of cloned Oompa Loompas, neurons on fire, wondering why? Why??

    Not that it was horrible, because it wasn’t. Nein! That isn’t it.

    It’s the easiest thing in the world to dismantle a horrible something as horrible, its a million times easier to destroy a hundred things than create any one.
    Scorn is easy.
    What is not is balancing scorn with respect.
    And here my finest attempt at balancing both:

    It’s a wonderful film, far more rich in imagery than the directors in 1971 could have ever imagined with their ancient computers and its far more loyal to the book than the first movie ever was; but here I am again called from the dead to show up at the same funeral I’ve been showing up for in “modern” art, where the 3 starring corpses are the same ones they’ve always been now that the world has become addicted to noise: Subtlety. Mystery. Guile.

    All three killed off for the remake.

    Consider.

    Violet Buearagurde once sat in the Wonkatania, picking her nose for a buger and saying “ Spitting’s a dirty habit”, as gracefully as any brat bred by an imbecile would out in public.

    Did Wonka wrinkle his nose in disgust like a child would?
    Did he scowl with disapproval like a parent would?
    Did he wag his little finger like a wrinkled old hag would?
    Did he recoil, like a retard with autism would?
    I say I say, did he ever evince the predictable?

    No!

    He looked this brat picking its nose square in the eyes without as much giving a hint of disgust and said- “I know a worse one”
    Jonnhy Depp’s Wonka would look, and like any 4 year old afraid to catch cooties would say, “You’re weird”

    Veruca Salt once licked the berry off a schozzberry painted on a wall and tried taunting Wonka with her self righteous ridicule.
    “Schnozzberry? Whoever heard of a schnozzberry?

    And the first Wonka calmly grabbed her by the cheeks and mysteriously quoted an ancient poet - “We are the music makers. And we are the dreamers of the dream……..”
    This new Wonka would have looked at her, and like any 12 year old who’s been asked a hard question would say, ‘You’re weird”


    Where is the mystery?
    Where is the guile?
    Where is the perverse cruelty of I-know-something-you-don’t-know? Where is that Gorgeous Unkown of not being told how those nasty little children ended, allowing you and I to assume they’ve all been sweetly destroyed?

    All the secrets are shattered by seeing each urchin leave at the end alive, by seeing a Freudian thesis concocted as a reason for Wonka’s being ‘fucked’ and eccentric, by seeing that this supposed mandman is so timid a 14 year old prick can call him an idiot and still get away with it.

    An excursion into a magical lunacy can hardly be chaperoned by a timid outcast. Magical times call for magical measures and only a magical hermit could do it.
    As cats always land on their feet, so too must this antisocial “freak”, this circus savage, also land on his always.
    An insecure mute could never insult you with a serenade.

    For any of you who’ve seen it, did you or did you not catch the irony of the Oompa Loompa song for Mike Teevee?
    For those of you who have even made it to this sentence- and here’s a toast that hundred thousand of you have already dropped like flies 542.28 paragraphs ago -do you or do you not see the irony of this kind of movie promoting the same lessons the book originally did?


    To sum it all up in a gumball, weary traveler:
    Shakespeare wrote once of Prospero purposely making the business of Ferdinand wooing his daughter more complicated than it should be:
    “They are both in each other's powers; But in this swift business I must uneasy make”, said Prospero, “ lest too light winning make the prize light”
    If Ferdinand wins Miranda too easily, his prize becomes less by losing some ounces worth of its value.

    The whole mystery of Wonka is easily won within 10 minutes of meeting him here, 34 years after the common folk are still trying to make their mind up on a well-read sadist wooing them in with his candy factory.

    That is the magic of mystery.

    Depp, a sexy bitch and otherwise good actor, makes the prize far too light.

    So where is fancy bred?
    In the heart, or in the head?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    It would seem that I must now go to the theaters and partake in the 'movie experience', buying a ticket and all, unless of course I decide to sneak in, in which case we can just leave that part of the experience out (But then, if not needed, is it really part of the experience in the first place? Whatever...), and through said experience, experience this experience, so that I might have the faintest inkling of what it is exactly you ware speaking of.

    And if it is, as you say, not horrible, then perhaps the price of the aforementioned ticket, golden or otherwise, will be worth it.

    That being said, I'm off to bed.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore Elbethil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    112
    Meh, neither movie is anywhere near as good as the book.

    I quite disliked how they attempted to give Wonka some "depth" in the new movie... and the "family is more important than chocolate" theme got quite irksome by the end of it.

    I like Tim Burton's work, and Depp's a good actor. I found that the new movie sticks to the books relatively well (as far as Hollywood films go). Nevertheless, it's no replacement for the book.
    "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    Good point Gendanken/Abraxas.

    I haven't seen the new movie or read the book, but I know exactly what you mean when you say Wilder, as Wonka, was a bit of a sadist who did leave you wondering whether those brats made it out of the factory alive. I always loved Wilder in that role. He did leave you wondering, and for me, without really knowing that I was wondering, until now. Thanks for your long-winded diatribe. Wonderfully delicious and magical.
    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    CottonTop:
    Good point Gendanken/Abraxas.

    I haven't seen the new movie or read the book, but I know exactly what you mean when you say Wilder, as Wonka, was a bit of a sadist who did leave you wondering whether those brats made it out of the factory alive. I always loved Wilder in that role. He did leave you wondering, and for me, without really knowing that I was wondering, until now. Thanks for your long-winded diatribe. Wonderfully delicious and magical.
    I love these selfless posts. No one's as much asked what the prize is.....

    Elbethil:
    Meh, neither movie is anywhere near as good as the book.
    Directors usually have a choice, you 'mehing' little cynic you:
    Appeal to the largest audiance and thereby cover the cost of producing it and make millions.

    Or.

    Appeal to the smaller crowd who actually read the book, and make barely enough money to cover the cost of producing it.

    Which would you do?

    Talfalfa:
    It would seem that I must now go to the theaters and partake in the 'movie experience', buying a ticket and all, unless of course I decide to sneak in, in which case we can just leave that part of the experience out (But then, if not needed, is it really part of the experience in the first place? Whatever...), and through said experience, experience this experience, so that I might have the faintest inkling of what it is exactly you ware speaking of.
    See, there are parts of humanity who simply insitst that by 'part' one meant the whole is impossible withtout that one part.
    Therefore, this part of humanity that thinks this way would lead one to believe that this part believes humanity is impossible without it.
    The black knob on my radio is part of that radio. My radio can still function without it.


    So 2 parts of humanity that don't perceive the word 'part' as so inclusive are going to part ways disagreeing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas

    Talfalfa:

    See, there are parts of humanity who simply insitst that by 'part' one meant the whole is impossible withtout that one part.
    Therefore, this part of humanity that thinks this way would lead one to believe that this part believes humanity is impossible without it.
    The black knob on my radio is part of that radio. My radio can still function without it.


    So 2 parts of humanity that don't perceive the word 'part' as so inclusive are going to part ways disagreeing.
    Hmm...
    Well said.
    But perhaps parting, even partially, over this part prattle would be a grave injustice. For parting 'tis often more sorrowfull than sweet. And sweets are what have brought us here. So let us partition off this prattle about parts and parting ways and, perhaps, return to it some other day. For today is far, far to sweet a day, to daily on the idea of parting, wouldn't you say?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Gendraxen,

    all you need is 93 percent imagination, 6 percent curiosity, 4 percent patience, and 2 percent butterscotch ripple.
    "But, Mr. Wonka!" exclaims Mike Teavee, "That's 105 percent!"

    "You're mumbling again," says Mr. Wonka. "Speak louder next time. On we go! Hurry up!"

    "I think the nutter's been at more than 2 percent butterscotch ripple, if you know what I mean..." mutters Mrs. Beauregarde to Mr. Salt.

    "My dear old fish,' says Mr. Wonka, "go and boil your head!"

    "How dare you speak to me like that!" shouts Mrs. Beauregarde.

    "Oh, do shut up," says Mr. Wonka. "Now. Watch this!"

    Which is why this is going to be long on purpose. Very long.
    And what about the fine print? You don't even give us the opportunity to not read the fine print? Instead you write it out somewhere in secret?!
    You're a monster!! An inhuman monster!!

    Ok. Where do I sign?

    Where is the mystery?
    Where is the guile?
    Where is the perverse cruelty of I-know-something-you-don’t-know?
    Exactly.
    Since watching the new movie, I've read the book and I have to say that you are right that it follows the book far better. In fact, many of the lines are quoted almost directly from the book.

    However, that's not to say that Depp's Wonka is more true to Dahl's Wonka. In fact, I think he was a far cry from that wily Wonka in the book. There were moments when Depp seemed to approach the proper sense of glee required for Wonka, but it seemed that he was far too caught up in the nervousness of the recluse who is forced to be amongst people once more. That seemed to be Depp's main inspiration for the role. A sense of paranoia and fear that surpasses all reason. Down to the rubber gloves he wears (which, ironically, he shares in common with his father. They squeak in a common key...).

    Wilder's Wonka was more... literate than Dahl's Wonka. And yet he played it truer to the sense of... confidence that was portrayed in the book. Wonka may have been a recluse, but he was in his element. You can't catch Wonka napping in his chocolate factory. Not any more. Not after he eradicated the spies.

    (Pardon the tangent, but I can't help but interject an oh so interesting tidbit of tasty trivia. Fickelgruber is the candy-maker who stole Wonka's ice cream that won't melt. Shicklegruber is Hitler's father's real name before his adoption... Funny? Somewhat. But, tie to this a most amazing coincidence(?). In the first movie, there is shown a picture of a man who made a fraudulent Goldent Ticket in Paraguay. What picture was shown? Do you know? The picture was of a man named Bormann. Martin Bormann.)

    Now. Where was I? Had I shown you the square candies that look round yet?
    No. I don't believe I have.
    But that's for later...

    Wilder's Wonka was wonderfully (damnit. I've run out of w's...) enhanced by the addition of all the literary references. From poems, plays, books, pop culture, soap commercial, everywhere. A wonderful assortment of references mixed into the mess and stirred so lovingly and never touched by human hands... His genius showed through in every word, every step, every twinkle in his eye.

    Depp's Wonka was just weird. And off. And mysterious. And deprived of family. Nervous.

    I liked Depp's portrayal of Wonka in some ways. I do find it somewhat more realistic in that a recluse shouldn't be so suave and debonaire. Antisocial behavior should not display itself in social mastery.
    But. Wonka is not real. He's magic. And that was stolen by this nervousness.
    Wonka is many things, but nervous is not one of them.

    Or. As you say: "An excursion into a magical lunacy can hardly be chaperoned by a timid outcast. Magical times call for magical measures and only a magical hermit could do it."

    Exactly. And in far less words.
    How dare you?


    Anyway. It seems to me that the situation is one in which the first movie was better than the book. Much better. The book did have some interesting things (such as those wonderful square candies that look round) that never made it the screen (in either movie) but the human drama was much more rich and interesting the first movie.

    The suspense was terrible...
    And it did last...
    All the way to the end.

    Wilder brought much to the role of Wonka. The fake limp and playful roll at the beginning was his idea and apparently it was a deal breaker. If he would not have been allowed to do that in the movie, he would have walked. (DId you know that Fred Astaire wanted to play the part but the producers thought he was too old?)

    And as to the subject of guile. Wilder himself said this about the subject:<blockquote>"We all grew up on movies with scenes where the actor is lying, and know he's lying, but he wants to make sure you know it's a lie, and so he overacts and all but winks at you, and everybody in the world except for the girl he's talking to knows he's lying. I wanted to do the opposite, to really lie, and fool the audience...I wanted people to wonder if Willy Wonka was telling the truth so that you wouldn't really know until the end of the picture what Willy's motivations were."</blockquote>It was this that was missing in Depp's portrayal. The true trickery. He winked and nodded at us through the whole movie. Over and over and over again. I suppose one might consider the problem of the first movie being so well-known that all attempts at guile could only end in failure. But, I think that too would be a failure on the part of the director. There is a thing called suspension of disbelief. Perhaps many (if not most) of the viewers would have known the outcome. But that doesn't change the fact that we'd still like the suspense... to last. And were so disappointed when it didn't.


    My. Have I become too serious?
    Perhaps. Perhaps. Sometimes I feel like a boring old fuddyduddy.
    I sometimes wonder if I would ever be able to run a chocolate factory.

    No, no, no my dears...Willy Wonka was a tale as timeless and everlasting as his Gobstoppers and it does not matter a lick how old or young you are.
    But. If it did, then you could lick it forever and it'd never get any smaller, yes?

    Did you notice the size of the gobstopper? That thing would definitely stop your gob wouldn't it. A choking hazard, I should think. And the cavities...

    Aaanyway.
    This is another aspect that is missing from the movie. The 'gobstopper conspiracy'. The final test. The one which finally put Charlie over the top. Up and out.
    We see a small homage to it in the look exchanged by Violet and her mother when the gobstopper is shown, but that's it.

    And this is what was so wonderful about the first movie. The tests. The endless tests. And Charlie won. Not by merely being the last boy out. In fact, Wilder's Wonka was prepared to throw him away because of the Fizzy Lifting Drink incident. (And that argument, of course, was SUPER SWEET. "Wrong! WRONG!! Good DAY, sir!!") Charlie won through adversity and peril. Not just by going with the flow and not getting into trouble. But through an active choice. An act. A conscious choice.

    Jonnhy Depp’s Wonka would look, and like any 4 year old afraid to catch cooties would say, “You’re weird”
    All of Wilder's charm and literacy. Gone. Smothered in the two-word phrase that was on everyone's lips.
    You're.
    Weird.
    Bah.

    Modern movies and their 'movie moments'.
    Makes me sick. (And at this point, Wonka would offer me his top hat in which to be sick.)

    Veruca Salt once licked the berry off a schozzberry painted on a wall and tried taunting Wonka with her self righteous ridicule.
    And the hidden joke of the shnozzberry.
    Apparently (I've never read the book but have been led to believe this by a later-mentioned source) the shnozzberry is code for the... penis. The head of the penis to be precise. So. Our lovely young Veruca was licking a cock. Oh. The scandal.

    And to think.
    She wanted a bean feast.
    She got a cock fest instead...

    All the secrets are shattered by seeing each urchin leave at the end alive, by seeing a Freudian thesis concocted as a reason for Wonka’s being ‘fucked’ and eccentric, by seeing that this supposed mandman is so timid a 14 year old prick can call him an idiot and still get away with it.
    The head gear was kinda funny. As was the hall of nations. But overall it was unnecessary and damaged the story.

    Anyway.
    The 14 year old prick doesn't get away with it. Does he?

    Where is that Gorgeous Unkown of not being told how those nasty little children ended, allowing you and I to assume they’ve all been sweetly destroyed?
    This is kind of a shock to me. This thought.
    You see. I've always known that they made it out alive.
    Alive but changed.
    You could say that the children that went into that factory never came out again. Those that did come out were not the same.
    The coyote is a transformative power.
    Wonka changed them.
    He murdered their old selves just as sure as if he'd boiled them and made them into fudge.

    I liked the addition of that scene. But, I do see your point. And if I had ever been in doubt over the situation in the past, perhaps I would be likewise annoyed by that.
    Hmm.

    “They are both in each other's powers; But in this swift business I must uneasy make”, said Prospero, “ lest too light winning make the prize light”
    If Ferdinand wins Miranda too easily, his prize becomes less by losing some ounces worth of its value.

    The whole mystery of Wonka is easily won within 10 minutes of meeting him here, 34 years after the common folk are still trying to make their mind up on a well-read sadist wooing them in with his candy factory.
    That is the magic of mystery.

    Depp, a sexy bitch and otherwise good actor, makes the prize far too light.
    Yes.
    The movie was played down for the 'masses'. All literary references must go. Too much for the average child to understand. We need physical humor. And lots of it.

    Hmm.
    There wasn't a single fart joke in the whole movie.
    (Well. There was a testicle joke...)
    I suppose the first movie (and the book) had a burp joke...


    Anyway.
    The special effects? Lovely.
    The physical humor? Hilarious. (Especially Wonka in Loompaland. When he licked his knife... that was... perfect.)
    The making fun of the Brit's bad dental hygiene? Priceless. (Doubly so considering Mr. Bucket worked in a toothpaste factory.)
    The suspense? Non.Ex.Istent. It was all a wink and a nod.

    So where is fancy bred?
    In the heart, or in the head?
    Now that's a question.

    -Gendanken
    Who?
    I have a trick ear. You'll have to speak louder.

    I love these selfless posts. No one's as much asked what the prize is.....
    I thought the prize was already given. Perhaps I've erred in my assumption.

    Well, what then, Wily Gendonka, is the prize which is thy offer?
    Don't be mean. Give me my gobstopper.
    Or better yet, a bean feast. I've always wanted one of those.



    Elbethil,

    Nevertheless, it's no replacement for the book.
    No. I don't suppose it is.
    And neither is it a replacement for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
    It must stand on its own, mustn't it?
    And yet. It is difficult to not hold it up to the mirror of past perfection.




    Oh. The square candies that look round? Where have they got off to? Hmm. Is there a door around here?




    Edit: Abraxas: Ha! Mine's bigger than yours. And I offer no prize for the taming of my shrew.

    Tafkam: How many parts, exactly, does it take to make a hole?

    And speaking of which. Back to Abraxas:
    The black knob on my radio is part of that radio. My radio can still function without it.
    Very wise, aye.
    But. Would your knob function without the radio?
    Hmmm?
    I guess Charlie has the answer for that, doesn't he?
    But, in that case, isn't the part then part of another whole? (Or hole. Whichever.)



    Edit again: Wonka: And. Oh. You know very well that I see the paradox of Mike Teavee. I'll refrain from speaking it out loud though. Maybe some other will see.

    And. As to the further irony of the lessons of the book being espoused by this movie. Aye. And it reminds me of something.<blockquote>"If you think gum is so disgusting," said Mike Teavee, "then why do you make it in your factory?"

    "I do wish you wouldn't mumble," said Mr. Wonka. "I can't hear a word you're saying. Come on! Off we go! Hurry up! Follow me!"</blockquote>
    So. Stop mumbling, Mike. It's unlady-like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    Gendraxen,
    Gen-drachen ...

    A "Drachen" is a "dragon" in German...

    EDIT: I like it, sometimes, when there is a long text, and I can read through it, but not really understand ...

    Sorry for not participating on topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    A "Drachen" is a "dragon" in German...
    What happened to 'draga'.
    As in 'draga moja'?
    (Or was it 'draga zmaj'? 'Moja zmaj'? Eeks. The creeky cogs haven't turned down those paths in many moons.)

    Edit: Oh. Wait. Derrr. German, not Slovenian.

    Edit again: And 'drech' is the sound you make when eating pounded green caterpillars. (Ah. Reminds me of days of yore when I was once known as Drecksus. Abraxas and I hounded this poor, sensitive killer-type guy. Wonder what ever happened to him?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Well, draga burned in the dragon's fire ... along with the moja.


    EDIT:

    German "Dreck" means "shit" (the noun) in English.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore Elbethil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Elbethil:
    Meh, neither movie is anywhere near as good as the book.
    Directors usually have a choice, you 'mehing' little cynic you:
    Appeal to the largest audiance and thereby cover the cost of producing it and make millions.

    Or.

    Appeal to the smaller crowd who actually read the book, and make barely enough money to cover the cost of producing it.

    Which would you do?
    Write an original script!

    It's essentially impossible to perfectly adapt a book to movie (or vise versa).

    There's plenty of other scripts floating around waiting to be made into films... wouldn't that be more preferable than the current Hollywood pattern just of making remakes, adaptions and (se/pre)quels?
    "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    Only three Golden Tickets, not five...?

    I've been watching all this enthusiasm regarding the new movie. And I have to admit, I've been watching it with a small bemused smile. Eagerness, anticipation... for a Tim Burton film? Alright, I thought when I heard about it, Depp's in it - that won't work. Then I heard it was Burton's baby, and at that point I lost interest. I've seen many of his films... and I think to this day I'd pick one for being his even if I didn't know before seeing it. Quirky music, and a particular "feel" which is almost haunting, but... not... quite.
    Not Quite. That pretty much sums up how I've felt about all of those I've seen. And he's had some good ideas to work with. In addition to that, I suppose my continual disappointment in his candy-coated endings is particularly appropriate given the subject of this one.

    Candy coated endings?
    This is kind of a shock to me. This thought.
    You see. I've always known that they made it out alive.
    Alive but changed.
    You could say that the children that went into that factory never came out again. Those that did come out were not the same.
    The coyote is a transformative power.
    Wonka changed them.
    He murdered their old selves just as sure as if he'd boiled them and made them into fudge.

    I liked the addition of that scene. But, I do see your point. And if I had ever been in doubt over the situation in the past, perhaps I would be likewise annoyed by that.
    Hmm.
    Well, no. I've felt from the very beginning a certain satisfaction in thinking those children who failed never came out. Ever. Changed or otherwise. I loved that idea. Someone, somewhere, taking a bite of a chocolate bar, unknowingly chewing on a piece of Verucca. How perfectly delicious.
    Have I just contradicted myself? Perhaps they did come out of that factory...
    Gene Wilder and Mel Stuart gave each and every one of us who saw it the luxury of believing anything we liked - the luxury of imagination. Burton has taken that luxury away, in favour of force feeding the viewer his own candy.

    And you know, here is where we get back to the difference between Depp and Wilder... and I'll make an admission here - I haven't seen the movie. I don't think I need to. I have fond memories of Gene Wilder, that man in his top hat and his anachronistic jacket, that very, very sinister man who I never saw as being evil. I liked Gene Wilder. I liked the idea of him being in total control of his factory, his world, liked that he simply disposed of those who didn't measure up and never thought of them again. I liked that he wasn't even willing to keep Charlie until he returned the Gobstopper... and I liked, too, the way he snapped instantly back to himself when Charlie returned it, in stark contrast to his utter disappointment when he thought they had all failed. The scene at the end of the original, Wonka with his head in his hands looking like a defeated man....but never once did he compromise his principles and keep whoever was "the best of them" - it was the one who filled his expectations or nothing at all.

    Wonka is an odd man, sinster, a recluse. A cruel man without giving any outward sign of being so - his cruelty is his secret amusement, and for any who see what he sees and smile with him. I don't think Depp could pull it off. He's too nice. Too open. Too... innocent. Depp has never (in any of his movies I've seen) given the impression he was in control of anything.
    Side note - I don't think Depp is a good actor. Al Pacino is a good actor. Robert De Niro is a good actor. Depp is a reasonable actor with a pretty face.

    So no... I have no burning desire to see Depp play Wonka, nor to see Burton's film. I believe something else, too... I think that Wilder had far more input in playing Wonka his way than Depp did. Just a guess.

    Gendanken said that the original movie is in the top ten movies of all time, again and again.
    I wonder, though. This movie, had there never been an original, had it been made directly from a book and Gene Wilder had never played Wonka, had it been released on it's own merit. Would it rate the same? I'm thinking perhaps it would be mostly forgotten and disappear, except perhaps among a small group of Burton fans.
    But I haven't seen it.
    And that's the whole point, really. I have no desire to. At least, not to go out of my way in excitement and anticipation. I've seen Burton films, and I've seen Johnny Depp. And I had a feeling before I read it here that I'd see those kids leaving the factory in the end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Before we begin, an obvious vulgarity: FUCK THE WORLD

    Fuck its 9-5ers.
    Fuck its money.
    Fuck its forcing one's need of it.
    Fuck its telephone bills, mortgages, its car notes, and insurance policies.
    Fuck its bureaucracies and its city councils.
    Fuck its politics, its religions, its legal documents.
    Fuck its Coco Chanels, JcPennys and Home depots.
    Fuck its anti-aging creams and Viagra.
    Fuck its Paris Hiltons and Brittneys.
    Fuck its reality television.
    Fuck its gossip and drama.
    Fuck its Christians and its million odd Star Bucks
    Fuck its republican administrations.
    Fuck its democratic administrations.
    Fuck its political advisors who won't go to jail because they've perfected the art of kissing ass in high places.
    Fuck its conservatives.
    Fuck its eminent domains and appeals courts.
    Fuck its franchises.
    Fuck its having to force the few us like the mass of them
    FUCK THE WORLD.

    In other words, fuck anything that attempts to destroy what otherwise was a mischievous individual who'd write a thread such as this one.
    That said, pardon my absence.

    Nexus:
    And what about the fine print? You don't even give us the opportunity to not read the fine print?
    The fine print says “two lucky winners.”

    Not that anyone’s interested, maybe the other forum which midnight to noon is crawling with people would bring more in? Who knows.
    I tried with this one.

    I'm afraid you've written way too much to be addressed all in one sitting however much one could try, but truly I tell you.
    I've read it all. About a hundred times now in passing.

    (Pardon the tangent, but I can't help but interject an oh so interesting tidbit of tasty trivia. Fickelgruber is the candy-maker who stole Wonka's ice cream that won't melt. Shicklegruber is Hitler's father's real name before his adoption... Funny? Somewhat. But, tie to this a most amazing coincidence(?). In the first movie, there is shown a picture of a man who made a fraudulent Goldent Ticket in Paraguay. What picture was shown? Do you know? The picture was of a man named Bormann. Martin Bormann.)
    That picture of an innocent "Venezualan" that just so happened to find the world's last golden ticket….. was none other than a man who served under Hitler.

    Which only adds to the theme of this movie- the art of weaving the wicked in with the good and leaving you, the spectator, clueless.

    Did you know that you could go up to anyone on the street and so long as you give the idea of being a professional, like wearing a suit, a tag displaying your name and title, as in:

    “Invert Nexus
    Investigative Reporter, C.C. dept. #15578
    Apex 689
    BNC News”

    and have a man with a camera or a small crew in uniform following behind you, that you could interview whomever for up to 10 minutes with a broccoli for a microphone? People are so taken in by this idea of being the center of attention that their brain does not take in the fact that they are speaking into a broccoli.
    They cannot read the mock on your face.

    To wit- you can make a person incredibly uncomfortable by staring their ear down when conversing with them, just so long as you first give them a feeling of being very interested in whatever the hell they are saying. The allure of being the center of attention smashes in to the repulsiveness of you staring them in the ear- which is ‘weird and icky’- and they have no clue whether or not they should address what they think you are doing or just keep talking.
    So they just keep talking because they only think you are doing it.

    Try it, takes practice.
    That is the sweetness of weaving the wicked in with the good. ……..*grin*
    I’ll think of it as my version of flashing a Nazi turd to sweet, innocent boy and girls, young and old, on national television.

    I just pictured the millions of Jews the world wide that too saw the movie. Muha…Stuart rules.

    Depp's Wonka was just weird. And off. And mysterious. And deprived of family. Nervous.
    Totally disagree.

    There is nothing mysterious about the neighborhood freak who you are told is the neighborhood freak because of its father.
    Ooh.
    Ahh.
    There are billions out there just like him. The DSMIV has pages and pages on Burton’s Wonka.

    Where is the mystery in being told anything if you believe it?

    For years I wondered how it was my uncle could pour water into a cup, right before my eyes, and then turn it over, right before my eyes, to see, with my very own eyes, that nothing poured back out again.

    By god? That man is a genius!, I thought for half of my life. How does he do it??
    I tried soda, I tried sugared water, I tried lighting, I tried titling the cup at weird angles but for the life of me could never discover how it is that this man could make the liquid disappear.

    And then one day I happened to hear somewhere that you stick a sponge in the cup where no one can see it. You pour the liquid it, its absorbed, and voila- you turn the cup over and no liquid.
    I believe it.

    The magic of Uncle died that day, and all the magic in magic was shattered.

    I ask again, then. Where is the mystery?

    I liked Depp's portrayal of Wonka in some ways. I do find it somewhat more realistic in that a recluse shouldn't be so suave and debonaire. Antisocial behavior should not display itself in social mastery.
    Good point.

    An outcast should smell like one….
    But consider that somewhere in there behind those thick walls was a library.

    It was this that was missing in Depp's portrayal. The true trickery. He winked and nodded at us through the whole movie. Over and over and over again. I suppose one might consider the problem of the first movie being so well-known that all attempts at guile could only end in failure. But, I think that too would be a failure on the part of the director. There is a thing called suspension of disbelief. Perhaps many (if not most) of the viewers would have known the outcome. But that doesn't change the fact that we'd still like the suspense... to last. And were so disappointed when it didn't.
    Charlie won through adversity and peril. Not just by going with the flow and not getting into trouble. But through an active choice. An act. A conscious choice.
    The wittiest line:

    Gendonka,
    PRECISELY!!

    You, sir, have won. You came close to losing on account of these lines:
    Give me my gobstopper.
    Or better yet, a bean feast. I've always wanted one of those.
    Care to guess why? “every last dot on each ‘i’ is a chocolate covered clue as to the fabulous things that await you.”- First Post

    Its right there, black and white, clear as crystal.
    Too much “I” means Veruca. Demanding a gobstopper requires I dump you down a garbage chute as bad eggs.

    But, you see, no one’s showed up and the rest of your post fits other criteria.
    Now give me your address.


    Magic Carpet Ride:
    Gene Wilder and Mel Stuart gave each and every one of us who saw it the luxury of believing anything we liked - the luxury of imagination. Burton has taken that luxury away, in favour of force feeding the viewer his own candy
    Well said.

    I mean, all that sweetened malice tied up in “You’re weird”? When’s the last time one saw an autistic retard in total control?

    The lines sung once, by Wilder, were:
    “There’s no earthly way of knowing…
    Which direction we are going…
    There’s no knowing where we’re rowing…
    Or which way the river’s flowing……..”

    You didn’t see it, but its obvious by now what you’re in for in case you ever do.
    You always know which direction you are going.
    You always know where it is you are rowing.
    You always know which way the river, the naïf, the glut, the brat, the bitch, the geek, the chocolate maker is flowing.

    I too stepped beside myself and said- “not fair! How could you call yourself a free thinker and
    judge Burton’s worth on Stuart’s? That is like claiming general relativity is wrong simply because you find Newton physics so pretty. So, had you not been so keen on the first film and only saw this one, would it stay with you for years the way Wilder did?”

    Answer is no.

    You never remember a woman who practically sticks your nose in her cleavage the first day by giving away all her secrets.
    But you always remember the silent charm of the distant ones, who you suspect are as voluptuous as the first social slut behind all her clothing.

    I don't think Depp could pull it off. He's too nice. Too open. Too... innocent. Depp has never (in any of his movies I've seen) given the impression he was in control of anything.
    PRECISELY!

    And here’s where we part:
    I have no desire to
    I was a feral kitty on catnip months and months before it finally opened, just waiting.

    I realize this makes me look childish.
    I can still…uh….blow your brains through your nostrils and feed it to maggots and stuff.

    Now give me your address.

    No one answered both questions.
    Pity.

    Tafkar:
    Hmm...
    Well said.
    But perhaps parting, even partially, over this part prattle would be a grave injustice. For parting 'tis often more sorrowfull than sweet.
    Ever consider this having to part over the trifles of parting on "part" is as pleasent as eating post partum placenta?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Abraxas,

    In other words, fuck anything that attempts to destroy what otherwise was a mischievous individual who'd write a thread such as this one.
    You forgot one.
    Fuck all the whiny, self-centered, arrogant little bitches.

    The fine print says “two lucky winners.”
    Tricky.
    And what's so 'lucky' about them?

    Not that anyone’s interested, maybe the other forum which midnight to noon is crawling with people would bring more in? Who knows.
    I tried with this one.
    It probably would have brought a few more in-depth responses and a lot more one-liners from the nitwits.

    I'm afraid you've written way too much to be addressed all in one sitting however much one could try, but truly I tell you.
    I've read it all. About a hundred times now in passing.
    Did I say I wasn't offering a prize?
    Ah. See how tricky I am?
    I was offering a prize.
    And it seems that your cramped fingers and numb gluteus maximus have robbed you, my dear.

    That picture of an innocent "Venezualan" that just so happened to find the world's last golden ticket….. was none other than a man who served under Hitler.
    Paraguayan.
    And. Not only that. Not just a man who served under Hitler. But the last man to see Hitler alive...

    ...their brain does not take in the fact that they are speaking into a broccoli.
    Better yet. A dildo.

    But, of course, there are those who would not even take the time to speak into the dildo... er... microphone. Some would simply bite the head off of it and continue with their meal, yes?

    And how does that make Augustus Gloop feel?
    "Hungry."

    So they just keep talking because they only think you are doing it.
    And when they are put on the spot, they are so frazzled that they don't have time to consider the pros and cons of their suspiciouns and so they fall back into a sort of default behavior. I suppose it would depend on the type of person. Some might be rude at heart and rudely push you aside. But most fall into compliance.

    Your experiment could be a sort of repeat of Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiments but on a different level.

    Funny.
    Weren't we just talking about nazis?
    Strange how things work out...

    Another thing that you've reminded me of (two things actually) is that it has been scientifically shown that people's first impressions are often wrong. People make a decision and then they later begin to waver in that belief, but they stick to their original decision solely for the old wives' tale about the first guess often being right.

    The first guess is actually usually wrong.

    But, to admit that, they'd have to go against their first guess.... which is that the first guess is usually right...

    Hee hee.
    I love that delicate twist of paradox inherent in the human decision making process....


    And. Another thing that this reminds me of (but much farther afield and hardly connected to the original experiment) is the Monty Hall Problem (which was wikipedia's article of the day yesterday...) When given a choice between three doors and then, after choosing one, being shown what's behind one of the remaining doors. Is it better to stick with your first guess or to change? According to statistical probability, you have a 2/3 better chance of winning if you do switch.
    Strange.

    Anyway. Back to Wonka...

    I just pictured the millions of Jews the world wide that too saw the movie. Muha…Stuart rules.
    And, of course, the film was filmed in Munich, Germany and the factory was, in fact, the Munich Gas Works.
    I just had the most... amazing thought.
    Wouldn't it have been hilarious to have made Auschwitz the factory? Those chimneys which would carry the smoke of chocolate making fancy actually turned out to be the same chimneys that ushered thousands of jews into the next world.
    That would have been horridly hilarious.
    Of course, that secret would have created an enormous backlash when discovered.
    Bormann was just a funny little thing.
    Auschwitz would have had the jews up in arms (and the liberals.)

    Totally disagree.

    There is nothing mysterious about the neighborhood freak who you are told is the neighborhood freak because of its father.
    Right.
    You got me.
    I worded that wrong.
    I meant that he was supposed to be mysterious. But he wasn't.
    I called him mysterious because he'd keep having those weird flashbacks and the group (remember the old discussion on the GROUP?) would sit there wondering what the hell was going on in his head.
    But. We, at the theater, were not wondering.
    We knew.

    So. You're right.
    He wasn't mysterious at all.

    You know what comes to mind right now?
    To kill a mockingbird.
    That, to me, is the quintessence of the mysterious stranger. I forget his name and all that. But he was mysterious.

    The magic of Uncle died that day, and all the magic in magic was shattered.
    Ah.
    I feel bad for you. The shattering of childhood dreams.
    There comes a time when all adults fail to live up to the magical thoughts inspired by them to children, yes? A day when we realize that the world is not the fairyland that we're fed as tots.

    Sometimes I wonder about that whole tradition.

    Anyway. I'm reminded of Skinwalker's sig: "Magic requires tacit cooperation of the audience with the magician -an abandonment of skepticism. It immediately follows that to penetrate the magic, to expose the trick, we must cease collaborating."

    Suspension of disbelief.

    You know. Speaking of uncles and magic tricks. I love babies and toddlers because they're so easy to amaze with the pull the coin out from behind their ear trick...
    Idiots.
    But it makes me magical!
    Heh.

    I do know a card trick or two that would knock your socks off though.
    Someday I'll show them to you.

    But consider that somewhere in there behind those thick walls was a library.
    Yes. But books don't make one socially acute. Do they? You can think of all kinds of witty things to say, but saying them is another matter. And saying them at the right time is very difficult for the shut-in. I suppose that his oompa loompas would have allowed him to exercise his wit though, don't you think?

    Anyway.
    Speaking of books and the missing literary elements in the new movie, this is from Stuart: <blockquote>"...it was made for adults. It was not made for children. I was not making a Disney picture. I was making a fun picture for adults. Because it's my strong feeling that children are very bright. They're very smart. They're very hip. And they will get all the references in the picture."</blockquote>

    And that's the difference.
    I don't think that modern directors don't believe that children aren't smart. In fact, many of them are far more worldly than their counterparts of years ago (but, less literate, of course.) but, they are attention-span deprived. They need everything fast, funny, in your face. Their can't be these jokes that spin so far off the main course into delightful tangents.

    Everything must be simple. Physical.
    Sad.

    Case in point. I particularly disliked Grandma Georgina's part in the movie.

    Too much “I” means Veruca. Demanding a gobstopper requires I dump you down a garbage chute as bad eggs.
    Ahhhh.
    Nice.
    I didn't see that.
    There's no 'i' in individual, you know... errr. *mumble mumble*

    But, you see, no one’s showed up and the rest of your post fits other criteria.
    Damn you. If I thought you were serious, I'd say that you've failed again. But, I think you realize that I was joking with my demands for the gobstopper and for the bean feast (which, by the way, is apparently a British term for a huge feast with everything...).
    Because, if I hadn't been joking. If I'd really been demanding my 'due'. Then Wonka would have shown me the door and muttered something about the waste of a day.
    Right?
    Right.

    Now give me your address.
    0001 Cemetery Lane
    Anytown, USA 66666

    So, had you not been so keen on the first film and only saw this one, would it stay with you for years the way Wilder did?”

    Answer is no.
    Absolutely.
    Well. It might stick with those of us with the memory. But it would never reach the levels of classicism that Stuart's movie did.

    Speaking of memory. You remember Edward Scissorhands? Crybaby? How many other mediocre movies (Depp's choice in movies is always... odd to say the least. And there are other films both Burton's and others that would fit the bill) that never make it to the stage of classic, but are still remembered.
    So. Don't speak of memory.
    Speak of.... something else... damned words...



    And.
    One last interesting piece of trivia.
    Did you know the original movie was sponsored by Quaker Oats?
    Can you think of a line from the new movie (which, I assure you, was in the book as well) that would have been axed by Quaker Oats?
    Hmm?
    Tick Tock.


    And another.
    Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
    It's been supposed that the title was altered for racial reasons (as the Oompa Loompas were altered from little black sambos to a more hippie look in the book to the orange things in the old movie to South American natives in the latest...) because Charlie was black slang for whitey. But, this isn't the case. In fact, the name was changed because Quaker Oats was going to make a candy bar called the Wonka Bar (and which was the bearer of Charlie's Golden Ticket rather than the Scrumpdillyitous Bar in the book). And that's why you see Wonka Bars everywhere in the movie, even the opening credits. The movie was... a commercial.

    Hilariously, there was apparently something wrong with the formula for the Wonka Bar and they all showed up at the store in puddles or something.
    Funny.
    Very. Very. Funny.


    Oh. Almost forgot. So disappointed that you didn't mention the square candies that look round...


    (Ha! This is as long (or longer) than my first post which you never got all the way through at one shitting...)


    Oh. Almost forgot.
    No one answered both questions.
    Pity.
    Which two questions?
    You asked more than two. Which two in particular were you talking?
    The one about in the heart or in the head?

    Repeat thy question and I'll answer it with great wordiness and prodigal chocolatey goodness.


    Magic Carpet Ride,

    I loved that idea. Someone, somewhere, taking a bite of a chocolate bar, unknowingly chewing on a piece of Verucca. How perfectly delicious.
    Which was nice that the original songs were put back in the movie which went into extreme detail about one Augustus Gloop being made into Augustus-flavoured chocolate-coated Gloop.

    Although, I'm of mixed feelings about the songs. I didn't like them at first, but after reading the book, I kinda do. I still have a fond rememberance of the simplicity of the Oompa loompa doompity doo.
    Ah well.

    and I'll make an admission here - I haven't seen the movie. I don't think I need to.
    I think you do. If you want to criticize it. However, you have my permission to wait until it's released on DVD.

    I have fond memories of Gene Wilder, that man in his top hat and his anachronistic jacket, that very, very sinister man who I never saw as being evil. I liked Gene Wilder. I liked the idea of him being in total control of his factory, his world, liked that he simply disposed of those who didn't measure up and never thought of them again.
    In an interview on the DVD, Wilder mentions (I won't go for the exact quote) that many parents were outraged by Wonka's behavior. That he was mean and cruel and that he'd frighten children. Wilder says that he believes that the children didn't think that. That they found him likeable. That they like knowing where the boundaries are. Something that is failing in modern culture.

    Of course, Wilder is not exactly qualified to be giving parental advice. Nor is he an expert on how people see him in the movie. I think he'd be shocked to find that many viewers actually had doubts that the children ever made it out of the factory.

    Depp is a reasonable actor with a pretty face.
    And a good sense of acting ethics. That's why I was so disappointed in this movie. I thought Depp would pull it off better because of his sense of ethics.

    I think Pirates of the Carribean have corrupted him. Did you know he's signed up for two more sequels or something like that?
    Depp. Playing sequels.
    Next he'll be on a cereal box or a happy meal box.
    Shall we warm up the word, "Sell-out"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Do they? You can think of all kinds of witty things to say, but saying them is another matter. And saying them at the right time is very difficult for the shut-in.
    Its called staircase wit.

    Ha! This is as long (or longer) than my first post which you never got all the way through at one shitting...)
    I said.
    I read it.
    I read it not once, not twice, but about a hundred times and all time in one sitting. I can quote me to you if you wish.


    Last but not least, you do not believe me.
    None of you do.
    Before puttnig this thread up I really did plan on sending the prize to each address.
    That is why I only pitched 3 winners and not 5.
    I cannot afford 5 packages.

    But silly girl forgot where she lived- the seedy underbelly of modern Cynicism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Its called staircase wit.
    Interesting. I always think of it more along the lines of a train. As in the information train. People that don't spend time with people don't always synch up in a socially accepted manner. Things come too soon or too late. Odd leaps and mysterious pauses.

    I said.
    I read it.
    I read it not once, not twice, but about a hundred times and all time in one sitting. I can quote me to you if you wish.
    I never said you didn't. Did I? When referring to one shitting, I was talking about you saying that you couldn't respond to it all.
    That's all.
    Are you saying that you do deserve the prize?

    But silly girl forgot where she lived- the seedy underbelly of modern Cynicism.
    It's not that I'm cynical about sharing my address with you, but rather with the world in general. You want it? You got it.

    Personally, I thought I already had my prize. But if you wish to offer more than what you've given already, I won't offend you by refusing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: A SCRUMDIDILIUMPTIOUS OPPORTUNITY 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Alrighty then...Or should I say now?
    I've managed to drag myself out of my existance, which is anything but magical (for the most part at least) and went out to see this new version of an old classic. Except it isn't that at all, is it.

    These are two movies that, although they share characters, plotline, and devices, aren't exactly related. They are very distinct entities, each with their own charm and, to be honest, faults.
    Now, let's see what Abraxas has to say, and on the way, I'll sprinkle my two cents about. Or maybe ten cents, or perhaps a quarter..Yes, two cents isn't going to be enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Which is why this is going to be long on purpose. Very long.
    I know a longer one...

    All you have to do, fellow wanderers, is make it all the way to my last sentence. That’s it.
    But how can we make it if we don't know where we are going?

    From there, yours truly swears- hope to die and stick a needle in my conjuctivitic eye, swear- to pick the lucky winners and give them their fair prize. The rest of you will be destroyed.
    And this brings me to the begining. A difference that, surprisingly, no one has bothered to point out yet. Naration. The original wasn't narated. That isn't so surprising. A vast majority of movies aren't. Yet the new one is.
    And so much lives in that naration. True, it is only given in the begining segments and the end, but it reveals alot. Not in the way that invert speaks about though, with nods and winks to the audience, but with little hints that, if one pays attention, leaves one wondering where exactly the truth lies.
    In the begining, or should I say towards it, we are told the Wonka sets a plan in motion. This is his plan to find an heir... And though we might be led to believe that something about this plan is random, and in fact are incouraged to believe this by Wonka himself when he declares that improvisation is a parlor trick, it would seem that every little detail is planned.
    Stop.
    Think about that.
    Every Little Detail.
    Even down to who gets the tickets, but more on this latter.
    It is only one part of the whole you see...

    No, no, no my dears...Willy Wonka was a tale as timeless and everlasting as his Gobstoppers and it does not matter a lick how old or young you are.

    Gene Wilder, who played Wonka, embodied a sadism so cleverly hidden it smelled of vanilla. And at every turn, every phrase, and every room in that chocolate madness was something as alluring as it was repulsive.

    That was the secret.

    It’s a secret wholly missing in this remake that stars Johny Depp as the Wonka instead. A remake which one sat through with an open mouth among millions of cloned Oompa Loompas, neurons on fire, wondering why? Why??
    True. Wilder's Wonka wasn't Depps, or vice versa. A good reason for that has to do with the story being told. The old film was a snippet. There was no mention of before, no mention of after. we know charlie wins, but what then? We know Wonka is having a contest, but why? What led him to this?
    By not having those elements, Wilder's Wonka is freer to act how ever Wilder saw fit. There was no story to fit into, other than that of a chocolateer recluse. Or would that be recluse chocolateer...

    Depp's portrayal had a setup that it had to be consistant with. That of a young boy who left home and grew up, with out parents. But then again, he never grew up. He's nervous, shy, excited by the simplist things. The logic he uses, is that of a child. Anyone that doesn't see thigs his way...Well, they're weird. Of course it makes sense to use squirels to crack nuts. That's what squirels do naturally, and they are good at it!

    But wait a sec...
    In the midst of all of that childishness we see glimpes of something not so childlike. We see it in his eyes when he glances coldly, and knowingly at the pump. And yes, we know what is coming. Is that from the acting or the fact that we already know the story?
    But that glance... That and so many other little scences spread through out the movie show us a glance through the little boy that never grew up to a cold calculating mind. A mind that does whatever it wants, however it wants. A mind that knows in that chocolate factory, He is the absolute autority, and not even the laws of the universe can stand in his way.
    But as soon as he is challenged, he looses that confidence and trns back in to the child. A child that never got a chance to grow up and into being an adult.

    But, we were asked why it was missing, and the answer is simple.
    Wilder's Wonka was Mr. Wonka. Depp's was Willy.
    Both were geniouses, chocolateers, loners, slightly off their rocker,etc..
    But Wilder's Wonka was an adult. There was never any mistaking that. A magical man in a magical place, but always, a man.
    Depp's Wonka was a child that never grew up. He was Peter Pan and the factory was his own Never-Neverland. A place created where no one could tell him what to do, or how to do it. A place where he never needed to grow up.

    The odd thing is this: Wonka's reasoning for the factory is plain in the second movie. Not so in the first. Yet, the first movie shows us that we can't be sure of anything we've just seen, but the first shows us what is there. There isn't a hidden secret. There are things we are left to guess at, like the fates of the children, but no secret.
    That fits with the earlier piece (everything was planned).

    Take them in hand. we'll be using them shortly.

    It’s a wonderful film, far more rich in imagery than the directors in 1971 could have ever imagined with their ancient computers and its far more loyal to the book than the first movie ever was; but here I am again called from the dead to show up at the same funeral I’ve been showing up for in “modern” art, where the 3 starring corpses are the same ones they’ve always been now that the world has become addicted to noise: Subtlety. Mystery. Guile.

    All three killed off for the remake.
    Perhaps you think them dead becuase you saw their caskets. I think that they were actually standing right next to you watching those boxes getting lowered into the ground. How else would they be able to watch the show?

    You just never bothered to look i those caskets. Subtlety and Guile aren't known for being obvious. Miss Tery might give hints, but she doesn't reveal herself that easily either.

    Consider.

    Violet Buearagurde once sat in the Wonkatania, picking her nose for a buger and saying “ Spitting’s a dirty habit”, as gracefully as any brat bred by an imbecile would out in public.

    Did Wonka wrinkle his nose in disgust like a child would?
    Did he scowl with disapproval like a parent would?
    Did he wag his little finger like a wrinkled old hag would?
    Did he recoil, like a retard with autism would?
    I say I say, did he ever evince the predictable?

    No!

    He looked this brat picking its nose square in the eyes without as much giving a hint of disgust and said- “I know a worse one”
    Jonnhy Depp’s Wonka would look, and like any 4 year old afraid to catch cooties would say, “You’re weird”
    Actually, I don't think he would. He would probably go off into a flashback that shows how his father would tell him the same thing, and then ignore it. Notice that the only time Depp's Wonka used the line "you're weird" is when someone questioned his way of doing things by bringing up the real world way. Or, more to the point, the adult way. To a child, it would be weird, but we've covered that point already.

    But I will show you what you what it is you do not see.. just wait a little patiently.

    Veruca Salt once licked the berry off a schozzberry painted on a wall and tried taunting Wonka with her self righteous ridicule.
    “Schnozzberry? Whoever heard of a schnozzberry?

    And the first Wonka calmly grabbed her by the cheeks and mysteriously quoted an ancient poet - “We are the music makers. And we are the dreamers of the dream……..”
    This new Wonka would have looked at her, and like any 12 year old who’s been asked a hard question would say, ‘You’re weird”
    I think it would be more likely that he would launch into a tale of the schnozzberry being located in some far off land. One of the many fantastic tastes he discovered while trekking around teh globe.

    But.. both your guess and mine are only guesses.

    Where is the mystery?
    Where is the guile?
    Where is the perverse cruelty of I-know-something-you-don’t-know? Where is that Gorgeous Unkown of not being told how those nasty little children ended, allowing you and I to assume they’ve all been sweetly destroyed?

    All the secrets are shattered by seeing each urchin leave at the end alive, by seeing a Freudian thesis concocted as a reason for Wonka’s being ‘fucked’ and eccentric, by seeing that this supposed mandman is so timid a 14 year old prick can call him an idiot and still get away with it.
    IF you want to see, you have to look. For a mystery of the level of the children, why exactly where those sheep pink and why did he seem so embaressed by it? We would at first think of cotton candy. But sheep make wool, not cotton...A detail Wonka wouldn't miss. Unless that is why he doesn't want to talk about it.

    But..
    But, but, but...

    That's child's play. Like leaving a question of the children's survival unanswered at the first one. There is no question there really. Wonka was a good man, as evident from him wanting charlie to have those qualities. A good man wouldn't kill children, no matter how rotten. He would teach them a lesson, but they weren't harmed. That is perfectly obvious.

    But:
    We are led to believe that everything is carefully planned. All the little winks and nods. The songs. The admission at the end that That (charlie's turning down the prize) was unexpected. Nothing else was. only that... Everything else was carefully planned. With a wink here and a nod there, he conducted te whole thing. Why would the gum machine happen t be running right then? Why would Wonka, who has planned everything so carefully, forget about the elevator, yet convienently remember right after violtet get's rolled out? Why let mike push the button? Everything is just so convienent. With every nod, wink and smile, we know the whole thing has been planned. how did that money just happen to be in the street right as charlie passed by? And why, if in the begining we saw boxes marked for tokoyo, new york, london, and other places; Why would one of the tickets show up right out side the factory?
    A bit convienent don't you think? It would make charlie awfully easy to have observed, don't you think? To set the whole thing up?

    You see this is what is tricky about a movie. In a book, these things don't have to be explained. In a movie, the added visual element can be used to raise more questions than it answers. The small ones being the mountain of fudge and all the other places we get glimpses of. Yeah, the factory is the largest in the world, but the first movie's factory seemed smaller to me. It seemed more...realistic. This one seems like the inside is bigger than the out. Just how big is this factory?
    And,
    Most importantly,
    What are we really seeing?

    If we are to believe that this story happened in this world, which is what we are wanted to believe, then we have to expect it to follow certain rules. The inside of the factory can break those rules, but the real world should not.
    So how did his father's whole house disappear? It could be explained away as a product of the flashback. How WW remembered things, and not reality, IF they had not found it, all by itself, at the end of the movie.

    And the picture we glimpsed in his fathers office. A picture of an older Willy, without any facial framework. How would his father have such a thing if Willy left when he was much younger? Where does the fantasy of the little boy end and the truth begin? Is there a truth?

    When charlie is polishing willy's shoes, we know that charlie has to know that it is wonka. There is no way of him not knowing. But in Wonka's mind, the newspaper will make him not know. It will work magic in the real world....It doesn't. Charlie isn't even mildly surprised. In fact, his words to Wonka seem calculated to get him to drop the paper.

    Wonka's world is that of fantasy. In it, he makes the rules. His whole life seems touched by this. Yet there is somethings that he cannot change.

    Yet in his world, he is all powerfull. Even to the extent of mimicing another's voice on demand. If he dreams it, it becoes true. And that is where the subtlety lies. In reconciling his world and ours.
    The mystery lies in figuring out whether he did have every little detail planned out, because if he did, then why even bother with the contest?
    And if her did, then there is alot more to wonka that he would want us to believe. But if he didn't, then how did everything go off so smoothly? How did he get lucky enough to find one good kid? (quite possibly the only one left!) Yes, we can through out the answer of "becuase it was written that way. duh."
    To which I will say, you really shouln't mumble.
    You see, what is written doesn't matter. If it did, we wouldn't discuss any of this. Yes, wilder improved alot and Depp followed a script, but we aren't asking which is supperier, improv or rehearsed? We are comparing the films and the nuances of each.

    An excursion into a magical lunacy can hardly be chaperoned by a timid outcast. Magical times call for magical measures and only a magical hermit could do it.
    As cats always land on their feet, so too must this antisocial “freak”, this circus savage, also land on his always.
    An insecure mute could never insult you with a serenade.
    But an adult could never be Willy Wonka either. At least not the wonka of the second movie.
    Yes, Wilder's was more suave. More refined. More social. What he wasn't, though, was a child. And only a child could have done what Wonka did. No adult would believe that a chocolate bird would hatch from a chocolate egg, much less attempt to make it so. Wilder's Wonka would have been out of place in this chocolate factory. Wilder's wonka wouldn't have an infirmery for puppets. Depp's wouldn't have an office that was full of oddities for no other reason than to mae it seem odd.

    There is the difference. Everything in the second movie had a reasoning. The reasoning of a child.
    THe first movie lacked that. It was just some slightly off kilter old man looking for a kid to take over. He even had a spy to trick them with. A very adult tactic if ever I heard of one. Wilder's wonka had tests that needed to be passed.
    Depp's already knew how it was goign to play out...or so he thought.
    Even in that, the mind of a child is shown. Of course one wuld give up their family for this. Families are wicked and cruel things. His was. Everyone's must be.

    For any of you who’ve seen it, did you or did you not catch the irony of the Oompa Loompa song for Mike Teevee?
    "It rots the sesnses in the head!
    It kills imagination dead!
    It clogs and clutters up the mind!
    It makes a kid so dull and blind!
    (So blind! So blind!)
    He can no longer understand
    a fairytale in a fairyland!
    (A fairyland! A fairyland!)
    His brain becomes as soft as cheese!
    His thinking powers rust and freeze!
    He cannot think-HE ONLY SEES!"

    You are probably trying to make the point that Mike is far from stupid and yet the song would seem to suggest that he shuld be. But, look again.
    It never says he should be stiupid. ONly that his thinking powers rust and freeze. He cannot thin, he only sees.
    This doesn't mean stupid though. Mike fit this song perfectly.
    He didn't tihnk about anything. He only saw what was there. He couldn't come to his onw answers, only regurgitate those someone else had already given him. He couldn't understand Wonka's world because it didn't make sense to him. It had to be tricks and special effects. It couldn't be real. He was beyond the point of even being wonderous. He couldn't believe.

    For those of you who have even made it to this sentence- and here’s a toast that hundred thousand of you have already dropped like flies 542.28 paragraphs ago -do you or do you not see the irony of this kind of movie promoting the same lessons the book originally did?
    What, those of thinking and imagination? Of being a free thinker not bound by society's silly rules?
    Well, I guess if I saw this movie as being so cut and dry as you do, then I would see it as ironic. But I like to think about what I see and hear and not just accept them at face value. I think the real irony here is that you seem to have done just that.

    No sence of wonder.
    No sence of awe.
    Abraxas does't need it all.
    She has it all quite figured out.
    She knows exactly what its all about.
    But then, she can not understand,
    Why she can't see what I can.


    To sum it all up in a gumball, weary traveler:
    Shakespeare wrote once of Prospero purposely making the business of Ferdinand wooing his daughter more complicated than it should be:
    “They are both in each other's powers; But in this swift business I must uneasy make”, said Prospero, “ lest too light winning make the prize light”
    If Ferdinand wins Miranda too easily, his prize becomes less by losing some ounces worth of its value.

    The whole mystery of Wonka is easily won within 10 minutes of meeting him here, 34 years after the common folk are still trying to make their mind up on a well-read sadist wooing them in with his candy factory.

    That is the magic of mystery.
    I would have thought just the opposite.
    I find very little mystery in the character of the original Wonka. Seems vey cut and dry. Like any adult should. Yes, wilder's portrayal did have a mgic about it, but that was a magic found in his wit, charm, and control. He is attractive for the same reasons James Bond is. Never without a witty rotort. Never missing a step or at a loss for words. Everything always turns out exactly as planned.
    But it does turn out. And there is a reason behind it. A perfectly explanable, real world reason.

    Not so with Depp's. He seems like he has control, but he seems to lose it anytime he is challenged. In the end things go about as badly as they could for him. The child doesn't want the prize. The mystery in this character is in trying to find where that balance lies. How much of that child is behind the adult, and vise versa. How much control did he really have, or is his life really that charmed? How much of what you were shown is only going on in his head?
    That, we will never know.

    Depp, a sexy bitch and otherwise good actor, makes the prize far too light.

    So where is fancy bred?
    In the heart, or in the head?
    The prize is light for those not willing to work for the real one. You were happy with the truck full of chocolate. you didn't come close to winning the factory.
    I guess you are a bad nut.
    You cannot understand a fairytale in fairyland.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Tafkam,

    A very good analysis. And perhaps it will draw the cynical maiden forth once more to this candyland which she has made and cast aside. (But, I see that she still returns to cut and hone her creation. Perhaps it was only the imagined slight or an impatient eye that silenced her tongue?)

    Regardless, I imagine that she will have some things to say about your post, and it is her thread, and hers to say, but I cannot but help but make a few comments of my own.


    First. I do like the connection you made between Willy and Mr. Wonka. So. This is something that differs from the movie and the book then. In the book, he was never Willy. Always Mr. Wonka.

    And. He may have been childlike in many ways, but he was not a child. He was not a boy who had never grown up. He was a man who, perhaps, was never a child. Not a man at all but an elf. A pixieish character. Magical in his every implication.

    But not a boy.
    Not a regressed or retarded personality.
    You see, in your scenario, Willy has become a victim. A dirty and abused stunted personality.
    Malformed and ill-treated.
    How sad to make the magical Wonka into just another boy that never grew up.
    How many of us already exist in this dirty world? It doesn’t need more.

    I know a longer one...
    I know several longer ones...

    And this brings me to the begining. A difference that, surprisingly, no one has bothered to point out yet. Naration.
    Good point.
    Interesting how such simple things are taken for granted.
    Narration, it seems, is here to stay.
    I must admit that it was quite a surprise to find that I’d been narrated by an Oompa Loompa.
    Who’da thunk?

    Anyway. Allow me to digress for a moment on the nature of the Oompa Loompas in the film. First, a couple of comments on the technical aspects. I am of two minds on the trick used to have just one Oompa Loompa digitially duplicated. For one, I’m a bit sympathetic to the midgets that didn’t get the part. Midgets spend a good portion of their lives waiting for movies like this to come out. And then to use only one?! Shocking.
    And. About costs. I’ve found myself thinking that perhaps it was a cost-cutting maneuver, but the truth is that it could only have cost them more to do it this way. I suppose we should be thankful that they weren’t completely computer generated.
    Or maybe a thousand little Smeagols dancing and singing. Gollum.
    Slinker and stinker.

    Anyway. Technical matters aside, I’ve also found myself wondering about what the homogeneity of the Oompas means within the story. For one thing, I’ve wondered which is the chief? Surely the chief would bear some form of distinguishing mark. I suppose the chief might well be the narrator himself. And their women? In the book, their were women and children. I suppose there was the receptionist Oompa. I’ve been thinking of her... it as a crossdresser, but perhaps it was a female. You know. In the book. The female wore only leaves. The children went naked.

    Anyway. I suppose this sort of reintroduces what could be called racist elements into the movie. The original Oompas were little black Sambos. Wonka was a slave-owner and he owned black slaves… So what that they were paid Cocao wages. They were still slaves. They knew nothing of the world outside of Wonka’s factory. It’s a good thing that none of the parents were lawyers…

    Rambling.
    What I meant to say about reintroduced racial elements is this. Instead of little Black Sambos, we have the inbred South American tribesman. The ones that all look alike because they’ve all been interbreeding in such a small gene pool for so long. The black Oompas were removed for political correctness reasons. And now a new form of political incorrectness has been reintroduced.

    In the begining, or should I say towards it, we are told the Wonka sets a plan in motion. This is his plan to find an heir... And though we might be led to believe that something about this plan is random, and in fact are incouraged to believe this by Wonka himself when he declares that improvisation is a parlor trick, it would seem that every little detail is planned.
    Stop.
    Think about that.
    Every Little Detail.
    Even down to who gets the tickets, but more on this latter.
    Quite. But. This is not new
    The first movie is rife with instances that seem to point to a conspiracy involved in the contest. From the contrived nature of the ‘challenges’ to Slugworth (Mr. Wilkinson) being present at each and every ticket finding. And, on this last point, get it clear in your head that in at least two instances, Veruca and Charlie, Slugworth was there at the time the ticket was discovered. He didn’t come along with a new crew later. Add to this the unlikelihood of all 5 tickets being found by children (4 out of 5 actually.) and you have a conspiracy of monstrous proportions.
    All of which were present in the original movie.
    Present but unspoken.

    So. This isn’t new. And, in fact, I don’t think that it’s even intended to seem new in the newer movie. What it is rather is more obvious.
    It’s so obvious, in fact, that it’s stated explicitly by Mr. Salt after the Oompas sing the song of Gloop’s demise when he says, “I do say that all seemed rather rehearsed.” Mike Teavee adds his two cents to this of course. To which Wonka replies, “Oh poppycock.”

    And. While going through the movie again for quotes, I came across an interesting thing.
    Witness the following bit of dialogue and see if you see it:
    <blockquote>Charlie: What would Augustus’s name already be doing in that Oompa Loompa song… unless
    Wonka: Improvisation is a party trick.
    Wonka: You. Little girl. Say something.
    Violet: Chewing Gum.
    Wonka. Chewing gum is really gross. Chewing gum I hate the most. See? It’s exactly the same.</blockquote>
    Do you see it?
    I’ll refrain from speaking it out loud. Let’s see if any are astute enough to see what I see.

    The thing is that I see this all as almost a satire of the original movie. Rather than simply hinting (not so secretly) that Wonka has this all planned, they satire the contrived nature of the whole situation. It satires what every kid with half a brain thought about the book. And it satires what any kid with half a brain thought about the movie. However, it satires it in a way that any kid with a quarter of a brain can laugh at.
    That’s the problem.
    It plays down to the people.

    There was no mention of before, no mention of after. we know charlie wins, but what then?
    I, for one, didn't like the final scene.
    It had its merits. It introduced another element of the book. The powdered sugar snow shaker. That’s straight from the book (although it’s used out of context, of course.)
    But, it demonstrates another instance of the lessening of mystery.
    You say no mention of before. No mention of after. I say that's exactly how it should be.
    There is no before or after. Only the now. All the rest is imagination.
    (The events of The Great Glass Elevator are another matter and are a complete mystery to me as I’ve never read the sequel. I have no idea what happened to Charlie after the contest.)

    I believe that that the final scene was put into place more for reasons of… plot twist than anything else. For one, they had to tie back into Charlie getting the factory after the diversion of him refusing the prize (which itself, I believe, was placed in the story simply to surprise people.) For two, it is a standard type of Hitchcock twist. You’re led to believe that Wonka and Charlie are just returning from the Father incident, but no. It’s later. And they’ve moved the shack to the factory. What a… surprise.

    By the way, I’ll take this moment to say that I LOVED the shack.
    It was perfect. PERFECT.

    (Did someone mention a long post? I’ve got miles to go yet. Maybe I’ll cut this short and see if anyone is interested enough to respond… Just a few more things then.)

    Speaking of everything going according to plan. Let me relate my favorite scene of the movie.

    The puppet scene.
    That was... perfect.

    It showed several key elements of Wonka's personality.

    1. His childish sense of pleasure.
    2. His egomania.
    3. His trickery.
    4. His malevolence.

    First. Those puppets were obviously well-used. They were not newly constructed for just this little show. They’d sung and danced their routine for quite some time. Wonka took pleasure in watching them sing and dance and make merry. He did indeed. But. What else did he enjoy about them?

    Second. Those puppets were sycophants who sung the praises of Wonka to the high heavens. Wonka loves having his ego stroked. Even if only by puppets.
    To tell the truth, I’m torn on this. On one end, I can easily see Wonka being this egomaniac. But, on the other I wonder about his need for puppets to be the strokers of ego. Aren’t the Oompas enough for him?

    Third. And this is the key element to me. It shows his trickery.
    I’ve spoken of Wonka as a coyote. And I do so for a simple reason. The coyote, in Native American lore, is a trickster much the same as Loki. However, Loki is deemed as evil where the coyote is neutral at worst. Good at best. The coyote tricks you into learning. The coyote teaches.

    So does Wonka.

    Of course, the teaching aspect does not play much into the puppet scene, but I felt the need to explain coyote anyway.

    So. Back to the puppets. There are a couple of levels of trickery going on here. The first is when the great throne-like chair rises empty. One is led to wonder what happened to Wonka? Is he running a little slow today? Maybe he’s got a game leg and missed his queue? What could have happened?
    And then the fireworks begin firing and the horrifying melting and eyeball popping begins and one is led to think how horrible this is all is and how lucky it was that Wonka wasn’t in that chair. He’d be flash fried and the tour would be over before it began.

    But.
    And here’s the kicker.
    The whole thing went off as planned without a hitch.

    And there’s a lesson to be learned in that, I think.

    Fourth. Wonka is malevolent. What he did to those loyal puppets was cruel beyond measure. Those puppets had danced and sang for him for years. Never a harsh word. Never an improper turn of phrase.

    And he laughed gleefully as they melted in a most grotesque manner.

    He does, of course, show his sympathy later when he sets up a puppet hospital and burn unit. You have to give him that. Wonka does feel bad after he’s been bad. Of course, that doesn’t stop him from being bad, does it?


    Hmm.
    I had several other things to say in here. But I don’t want to bore. And I fear I already have even before making this post.


    Let’s see. Crucial matters.

    On Mike Teavee.
    I don’t agree with you that he has no imagination and only pukes up what he’s swallowed whole.
    He beat the system.
    He found his Golden Ticket by opening one candy bar. There was no book in the world that taught that.
    I think that you can say the song might fit him in the sense that he is of the logical world. He can make no sense of Wonka’s world and it’s for that that he is maligned. I can see it. However, the sense of the song is calling him stupid. There can be little doubt of that.
    “Television rots your brain,” is the cry.
    And it’s ironic that Mike Teavee’s brain might well be considered warped, but not rotten.



    The sheared sheep. Yup. I thought the same thing.
    Cotton candy.
    And of course one is led inexorably to thoughts of out west where the men are men and the sheep are nervous. After all, does Wonka only have sex with Oompas? If so, then why isn’t their genome corrupted with his?
    There should be little Wonka-headed Oompas running around.
    Of course, maybe they’re made into fudge.


    I find very little mystery in the character of the original Wonka. Seems vey cut and dry. Like any adult should. Yes, wilder's portrayal did have a mgic about it, but that was a magic found in his wit, charm, and control. He is attractive for the same reasons James Bond is. Never without a witty rotort. Never missing a step or at a loss for words. Everything always turns out exactly as planned.
    But it does turn out. And there is a reason behind it. A perfectly explanable, real world reason.
    I don’t exactly think you could call it a real world answer.

    How did the movie end?
    Did you know the original script ended with “Grandpa says Yippee!!”
    That’s right.
    That was the ending.
    They had to track down the writer from the wilds of his vacation in Maine to squeeze one last line from him.
    And what was that line?
    The cheesiest, most cornball line that he could think of. One that he thought would get him laughed out of the business.

    He lived happily ever after.

    Does that sound like a real world answer to you?



    Damn. I'd love to say more. These movie can be analyzed deeper and deeper without end. But I'll refrain for the moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    OH.
    And something else to consider.

    The 'cocoa' bean.
    There ain't such a critter.
    Chocolate comes from the cacao bean.
    But ain't no American Mike Teavee ever heard of no Cacao bean. So instead of having to explain it to the idiots, they say cocoa bean instead.

    Sweet, ain't it?

    That's what I'm talking about.

    Mod edit: removed insult.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    Tafkam:

    "For any of you who’ve seen it, did you or did you not catch the irony of the Oompa Loompa song for Mike Teevee?"

    There is a rather simple irony here that you appear to have missed.
    Think about the fact that this is a movie you're speaking of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    There is a rather simple irony here that you appear to have missed.
    Think about the fact that this is a movie you're speaking of.
    See.
    That's what happens when you comment on a moive you haven't seen.
    It's not that it's a movie.
    But it's rather that it's the type of movie that it is.
    The type of movie that has lost all the subtlety and guile.
    A movie that is 'in your face'.

    A movie that is, I think, perfectly highlighted in the example I've given with the Cacao bean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    Subtlety appears lost on you, as well.
    I said "Think about...".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Well. You know me. I'm usually about as subtle as a brick to the head.

    However, maybe you're talking about the full song as per the book? In the book, much was made of how in olden days children would read. Books. And this being a movie is a symptom or cause of that syndrome which afflicts modern children. Keeping them from books.

    However. I find that song suspect. I'd guess that more children may have read back then, yes. But, I also suspect that a large number didn't.

    It seems to me to be one of those situations where people look back at the past fondly.


    If that's not what you're referring to, then... Well. I was going to say spill it, but why not let the others guess first.

    I wonder if any will solve my riddle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    It's not that it's a movie.
    But it's rather that it's the type of movie that it is.
    The type of movie that has lost all the subtlety and guile.
    A movie that is 'in your face'.
    More or less what I wanted Tafkam to think about. Odd to put such a song in a movie lacking guile, as Gendanken mentioned.

    Basically, the irony is that the movie appears to be, from all I've read, precisely the type of thing to stifle the imagination rather than feed it.
    It is not going to stimulate the imaginations of people in the way the original did, due to its very nature... and yet laments the fact of its own existence.

    I wonder if that very irony was lost on the director himself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman Coffee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    84
    Invert, please refrain from calling people names.

    Cottontop, please refrain from posting one-liners that add nothing to the conversation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Three posts up:
    Basically, the irony is that the movie appears to be, from all I've read, precisely the type of thing to stifle the imagination rather than feed it.
    It is not going to stimulate the imaginations of people in the way the original did, due to its very nature... and yet laments the fact of its own existence.
    Bingo. I finally get to say it….

    Augustus Gloop chewing bubble gum in front of the television flipping through the channels with a twinkie, demanding his mother get him another one.

    It was this kind of child we saw sprawled out there as a movie- a culmination of all these excesses this same child purportedly advocates against:
    The suffocation of one's mind by visual indulgence or neat pecial effects!, Mike Teevee.
    The sacrifice of content over form in the name of competition or public relations as far as movies are concerned, Violet Beauragarde..
    The poor parenting, or directing, that essentially spoils the end product. Veruca Salt.
    The dependence on useless fat and sugar to compensate for the lack of all nutrition in your product; in other words the use of pretty lights and computer tricks to fill the gaping holes where imagination, mystery, guile would more than fill instead, Augustus Gloop.


    That's the irony.
    Burton should have left out the moral lessons in this spoiled obesity.


    Back with more, mind's brewing.

    Mod edit: I'm a mod here, and it's a no-no to insult me or anyone else on this board.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    I wasn't going to reply to this in thread because I didn't think it'd be conducive to discussion, but I have just thought of something...

    The suffocation of one's mind by visual indulgence or neat pecial effects!, Mike Teevee.
    The first movie had neat effects for the time. Well. As neat as they could get for the relatively low budget they had available for them. Those special effects when the Oompas are singing Mike Teavee's song? (Hmm. It just struck me that the song with the highest production values was Mike's song. Interesting?) That wavering text appearing on the screen. "What do you do when your child is a.... BRAT!"
    That was kickass stuff. Don't let your modern day sensibilities fool you. You too are a victim of exactly what you're speaking against... in a way. You've grown accustomed to the visual effects of modern movies. The computer generated graphics that would make people shit their pants 20 years ago is just another passe experience for you.

    The serpent is subtle, they say. Be wary.

    The sacrifice of content over form in the name of competition or public relations as far as movies are concerned, Violet Beauragarde..
    The Oompa Loompas were changed from little black Sambos to little hippies in the book. (I guess they figured the hippies wouldn't mind.) And then to little orange men in the movie (I'm unsure which change came first. The book was only published a few years before the movie...)

    Also, the first movie, despite your love for it, is public relations. It's a commercial for the Wonka Bar. It's a commercial for Quaker Oats. And that, my dear girl, has to be the most... ironic irony ever.

    The poor parenting, or directing, that essentially spoils the end product. Veruca Salt.
    The original movie is, in a way, a fortuitous event. It was made by amateurs. Dahl wrote the script which was then rewritten by Seltzer who was a self-proclaimed amateur. He says that if he were offered the chance knowing what he knows now he wouldn't have taken it. He had no idea what he was in for. The actors were all somewhat amateurish and unknown. Augustus Gloop couldn't speak English. Charlie quit the business after this film because it freaked him out so much. I guess the other three were somewhat in tune with the biz.. but still. They were mostly unknowns.

    The movie was described by... probably the director (I forget exactly) that the movie was something like Our Gang getting together to put on a show. Some old dirty blankets for curtains and cardboard boxes for props. Alfalfa singing Figaro.

    And yet, it was magical.

    I can't fault it for being low-budget or amateurish. Despite it all, it was something special that outlived the Wonka Bar by decades.

    The dependence on useless fat and sugar to compensate for the lack of all nutrition in your product; in other words the use of pretty lights and computer tricks to fill the gaping holes where imagination, mystery, guile would more than fill instead, Augustus Gloop.
    I sure as hell can't deny what you're saying. I've been saying it all along... just not applying it to the question of Mike Teavee because I thought it was what we'd discussed previously about Mike not being stupid.

    But. I find the ironies involved in the comparisons I've just given are quite striking.

    Back with more, mind's brewing.
    Double mocha?
    It better be chocolatey.

    By the way. Anyone who knows Gendanken's habits see what's so ironic about her having such a fondness for a movie on chocolate?



    Aside:
    Speaking of the actors. Grandpa George. He was a german actor and couldn't speak English. Apparently, he had a pair of shoes that he prized above all things. They were the only things he had left to his possession after the war. One day, he came in and put the shoes under the bed. The prop guys came in to get them out of the scene because they didn't fit. And he threw a HUGE fit over it because he thought they were gong to steal them and he'd never see them again.

    Also, he was really blind as a bat and apparently while the Golden Ticket song was being sung by Charlie and Grandpa Joe, they showed him where to look by moving a flashlight around.
    Strange but true.

    (The behind the scene stuff is really kinda interesting.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Yes, Mr. Invert, but no matter the special effects and modifications or political correctness found in the first with Gene Wilder, the second one is easily forgettable for the simple fact that form took precedence over content.
    You couldn’t even find Depp interesting.

    Mod edit: Check your inbox. -coffee
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    BRAAGH!!!

    "To the marshes..."
    Doesn't scratch this itch to strangle, Coffeebean.


    All's cleared..............even though we all know Coffee was simply looking to flash that little badge of his. Now replace 'videogames' with 'Windy Blogs and Regurgitazz Political'


    Topic back in session.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Hmm.
    I thought sure you'd do more than that.
    Don't know if I'm disappointed or relieved...


    Alright. So. Topic. Topic. Who's got the topic?

    Here's one.

    That line came from a popular british boardgame....


    Oh. And as to what you said, Abraxas, about form before function. Absolutely. I can't disagree that the movie is forgettable.
    I've tried to be impartial, but it's impossible.

    I still just can't work up the enthusiasm for it that is engendered by the original though.
    I really think that even if the first had never been made, then the situation would be the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Beause I'm one obsessive aberration that cannot let things die, I'll put it back up as it was for my sanity:

    Yes, Mr. Invert, but no matter the special effects and modifications or political correctness found in the first with Gene Wilder, the second one is as easily forgettable for the simple fact that form took precedence over content.
    You couldn’t even find Depp interesting.


    My personal affection for Burton’s films aside, most directors know that an idiot like Taffy sits in their audience.

    They know that the responsibility of problem solving or the joy of finding hidden meaning in the simple, honest and clean is far too taxing and mundane for such a tiny mind diseased with ADD.

    Like Taffy’s.

    So they make sure to tell him everything, give up every secret, and guide that tiny mind of his through every curve and corner.
    And only by smearing it in noise and special effects can they still call it an adventure.

    Riding an old Chevy with a bad muffler and torn wheels is a noisy adventure, so’s my mother.
    Doesn’t make them interesting.

    This message brought to you by a trickster named Gendanken, who would be angry if not for this amusing image of my deputy friend Taffy showing up with his empty pistol.
    You know, like Barney Fife who was so powerless he’d threaten to use his tiny bullet over the teeniest trifle.
    And then remind you who was deputy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    Tafkam,

    A very good analysis. And perhaps it will draw the cynical maiden forth once more to this candyland which she has made and cast aside. (But, I see that she still returns to cut and hone her creation. Perhaps it was only the imagined slight or an impatient eye that silenced her tongue?)

    Regardless, I imagine that she will have some things to say about your post, and it is her thread, and hers to say, but I cannot but help but make a few comments of my own.
    Thank you. But, it would appear that the 'cynical maiden' didn't have anything to say concerning my post. I guess I will content myself with answering you.


    First. I do like the connection you made between Willy and Mr. Wonka. So. This is something that differs from the movie and the book then. In the book, he was never Willy. Always Mr. Wonka.

    And. He may have been childlike in many ways, but he was not a child. He was not a boy who had never grown up. He was a man who, perhaps, was never a child. Not a man at all but an elf. A pixieish character. Magical in his every implication.
    I'll make one thing clear right now. I haven't read the book. Perhaps I will look into it, but as of now I cannot speak on it.
    But, if I am to believe what you have said, then one could say that both movies failed to capture that.

    In the second, admittedly, Depp's character was a wounded child that never learned what it ment to be an adult. In a way, however, that alone is a great thing. Imagine never loosing that innocence that one has when young. Never loosing what it means to not accept what you cannot change. That, by itself, makes his portrayal something magical to me.

    In the first, by contrast, I have trouble veiwing Wilder's wonka as anything but an eccentric adult. A recluse that pulled away from a world he didn't like. A man that wanted the magic that he had lost, but still a man that had lost it. I don't see innocence in Wilder. I don't see wonder. There is magic, yes, but it is not the magic of a child.

    That is where the true magic is, in my oppinion. The ability to look at the world and not know defeat. To not know that something is impossible. To not be bound by the 'rules' that apply to universe.

    That is what I see in Depp's portrayal. True it lacks the charms and wit that come along with adult hood. It's lacks the subtlety that comes with being less than honest. Wilder's was a trickster. Depp's was a child.

    Perhaps my favorite aspect of the second film was based on that distinction. The second gives you a background. That background serves as an anchor. Even in the first opening moments, it plants you in this world. In the real world. The to show a person capable of magic: Living chocolate birds, buildings that disappear in an afternoon, mountains of fudge, beaming chocolate across the airwaves. To show someone doing these things in the here and now helps to recapture that sense of wonder. That is what I was trying to get at when I brought up that the first had no other time. That factory was never firmly rooted in this world. It's mentioned as almost an after thought. The second movie forces you to accept that fact, which just makes the rest that much more magical.

    But I am getting ahead of myself.

    But not a boy.
    Not a regressed or retarded personality.
    You see, in your scenario, Willy has become a victim. A dirty and abused stunted personality.
    Malformed and ill-treated.
    How sad to make the magical Wonka into just another boy that never grew up.
    How many of us already exist in this dirty world? It doesn’t need more.
    I made the comparison to Peter Pan and neverland for a reason. I wouldn't view Peter Pan as a victim, nor would I view Willy as one.
    True, the reason, at least in part, that he became who he did, was the history that they present us with. However, he dealt with his situation by not accepting what was given to him. By regecting what he was told and doing things his way. Fighting the system and making a real change isn't what I would call the behavior of a victim.
    The only way I would agree with you would be if we were to claim that everything we were shown only existed in his head. That he cuoldn't cope with reality and made one for himself, and only himself. It would seem that the movie would have us believe that he didn't want to accept reality and forced it to change to his whim.

    Good point.
    Interesting how such simple things are taken for granted.
    Narration, it seems, is here to stay.
    I must admit that it was quite a surprise to find that I’d been narrated by an Oompa Loompa.
    Who’da thunk?
    My point wasn't one about the stlye of the film, nor the role of narration in modern movies.
    My point was that we were being told a story. Movies don't tell a story, they show a series of events. They show us a story. That process alone removes a majority of the imagination from the experience. You don't have to wonder what the alien looks like, or if the knight was handsome: It is all shown to you.
    But, by giving us a narrator, even one that exists in the film, it lightens that forced acceptance.
    A good example of this exists towards the end of the film. A segment I have already commented on, but will do so again now. When they visit Willy's father's house, you see pictures of him as a young man, without the head gear. That is in direct conflict with what you have been shown by Willy's flashbacks. A house disappearing from the middle of a block and reapearing in the middle of a field is also in direct opposition of the setting that the film gave us in those opening scenes: That of the real world.
    This all begs the question: How much of what we were shown actually happened?
    And no, I don't mean outside of the film.
    Speaking of matters outside the film would be pointless. Only an idiot would try to make their entire argument on that foundation, especially when discussing the nature of characters within them. The whole argument would then degrade to a question of which part was better written. That person would be doubly so had they never seen the film and was attempting to make such a point. But this is all tangental.

    What I am saying is that by knowing we are being told a story, we are being told that everything we see is not nessecarily true, even in the context of the film. It is someone's account of events. Their take on what actually happened.
    That is something that the first film lacks: The ability to make up your own mind. Everything is set for you. The only thing you can guess at is what came before and what comes after. What is the story that we aren't shown.
    The second gives us the oppertunity to question everything we see.

    Anyway. Allow me to digress for a moment on the nature of the Oompa Loompas in the film. First, a couple of comments on the technical aspects. I am of two minds on the trick used to have just one Oompa Loompa digitially duplicated. For one, I’m a bit sympathetic to the midgets that didn’t get the part. Midgets spend a good portion of their lives waiting for movies like this to come out. And then to use only one?! Shocking.
    And. About costs. I’ve found myself thinking that perhaps it was a cost-cutting maneuver, but the truth is that it could only have cost them more to do it this way. I suppose we should be thankful that they weren’t completely computer generated.
    Or maybe a thousand little Smeagols dancing and singing. Gollum.
    Slinker and stinker.
    Since this is a side point, I will indulge one of my own. Smeagol was entirely computer generated, and then again he wasn't. The 'actor' was hired to do nothing but the voice. When he showed up, however, he started climbing over the rocks and acting out the part. The smeagol we see in the film is based on his movements, his facial expressions; in short, his acting. Where does one draw the line then and say that the character is completely computer generated. With out that actor, the creature we know would have been entirely different.

    Anyway. Technical matters aside, I’ve also found myself wondering about what the homogeneity of the Oompas means within the story. For one thing, I’ve wondered which is the chief? Surely the chief would bear some form of distinguishing mark. I suppose the chief might well be the narrator himself. And their women? In the book, their were women and children.

    ...

    The black Oompas were removed for political correctness reasons. And now a new form of political incorrectness has been reintroduced.
    I'm not even goign to get into that mess. Certain things just don't need touching. It is a movie of fantasy after all. Some things do have to be let go. I mean, we could discuss how he got that little chocolate bird to hatch and be alive, and so quickly too.

    Quite. But. This is not new
    The first movie is rife with instances that seem to point to a conspiracy involved in the contest. From the contrived nature of the ‘challenges’ to Slugworth (Mr. Wilkinson) being present at each and every ticket finding. And, on this last point, get it clear in your head that in at least two instances, Veruca and Charlie, Slugworth was there at the time the ticket was discovered. He didn’t come along with a new crew later. Add to this the unlikelihood of all 5 tickets being found by children (4 out of 5 actually.) and you have a conspiracy of monstrous proportions.
    All of which were present in the original movie.
    Present but unspoken.
    Here I would disagree. You always see slugworth on the news reports. Not with the child when they discover the ticket. In other words the info is already out. The reporters have to know where to go, now don't they. Slugworth just goes to the same place.

    In the second, though, there is no slugworth. Yet Wonka knows everybody's story before they get there. Even Charlies's.
    Charlie who found the ticket only the night before and had no news coverage. "And you. You're just lucky to be here, aren't you."
    How did he know that....
    Think on that one.

    So. This isn’t new. And, in fact, I don’t think that it’s even intended to seem new in the newer movie. What it is rather is more obvious.
    Well, we could continue to guess at the intentions of the film makers. I could guess that it was intended to seem new. But I will just stick to giving my oppinion of what I saw, and not guess at other's intentions.

    It’s so obvious, in fact, that it’s stated explicitly by Mr. Salt after the Oompas sing the song of Gloop’s demise when he says, “I do say that all seemed rather rehearsed.” Mike Teavee adds his two cents to this of course. To which Wonka replies, “Oh poppycock.”
    The difference in the two examples you've given being this: one is about the intentions of the filmakers. The other is a characters observations and oppinions on events inside the film. We could argue that it was the intention of the filmakers to make the whole thing seem more magical by having wonka 'prove' that it was just ad-libbiing, but what would be the point?
    I owuld rather see it as a character was on to Wonka's plan and Wonka was trying ot cover his tracks....the way any clever child would.

    And. While going through the movie again for quotes, I came across an interesting thing.
    Witness the following bit of dialogue and see if you see it:
    <blockquote>Charlie: What would Augustus’s name already be doing in that Oompa Loompa song… unless
    Wonka: Improvisation is a party trick.
    Wonka: You. Little girl. Say something.
    Violet: Chewing Gum.
    Wonka. Chewing gum is really gross. Chewing gum I hate the most. See? It’s exactly the same.</blockquote>
    Do you see it?
    I’ll refrain from speaking it out loud. Let’s see if any are astute enough to see what I see.
    The almost but not quite effect? The haunting similarity to the original that is still so distint and distinct?

    Never noticed.

    The thing is that I see this all as almost a satire of the original movie. Rather than simply hinting (not so secretly) that Wonka has this all planned, they satire the contrived nature of the whole situation. It satires what every kid with half a brain thought about the book. And it satires what any kid with half a brain thought about the movie. However, it satires it in a way that any kid with a quarter of a brain can laugh at.
    That’s the problem.
    It plays down to the people.
    That is alot of satire... Especially for a film that tried to stay truer to the book. But, your oppinion raises an interesting point, but not the one I think you were intending.
    Many children, and people in general for that matter, probably read that book and didn't read half as much into it as you, Abraxas or anyone who really thought about it did. Does this mean that the book was just another children's book written for the stupid masses?
    In the same way, we can say that the new movie is simply a flashing CG fest that has been dumbed down for a stupid public. But the original never made me ask the questions this one did. I think that, in the end, it is like any other piece of cinema, literature, or art: The artist may have intended one thing, but it is all up to the audience.

    I, for one, didn't like the final scene.
    It had its merits. It introduced another element of the book. The powdered sugar snow shaker. That’s straight from the book (although it’s used out of context, of course.)
    But, it demonstrates another instance of the lessening of mystery.
    You say no mention of before. No mention of after. I say that's exactly how it should be.
    There is no before or after. Only the now. All the rest is imagination.
    (The events of The Great Glass Elevator are another matter and are a complete mystery to me as I’ve never read the sequel. I have no idea what happened to Charlie after the contest.)
    I really do not see your argument. In the first movie, we were left wonder what happened afterward. In this one, we can ask the same question.
    True, some answers have been given for us, but not al of them. What happens to Willy? Does he grow up, or does he reamain what he is? What happens when he passes on? Does charlie ever run the factory on his own?
    Do the oompa loompas ever revolt and demand real pay?
    We can sum it up and say "and they lived happily ever after", but we can do the same in the first.

    Now, I will agree that there was something I didn't like about the final scene. However, I would be hard pressed to come up with a better alternative considering the movie up to that point.

    But, my point about the before and after was something totally different, and something I addressed earlier on.

    I believe that that the final scene was put into place more for reasons of… plot twist than anything else. For one, they had to tie back into Charlie getting the factory after the diversion of him refusing the prize (which itself, I believe, was placed in the story simply to surprise people.) For two, it is a standard type of Hitchcock twist. You’re led to believe that Wonka and Charlie are just returning from the Father incident, but no. It’s later. And they’ve moved the shack to the factory. What a… surprise.

    By the way, I’ll take this moment to say that I LOVED the shack.
    It was perfect. PERFECT.
    The plot twist was covered when charlie refused the factory. Everthign after that was just resolution.
    And, even though a few things happened after he turned it down that raised some interesting questions, I could have done without alot of it.
    But, I will not fault the entire movie just because I didn't like the ending.

    I didn't much care for the ending of the matrix trilogy. They could have done so much more with it. There were whole levels of subtlety and surprise they could have used. Instead, they choice to write something that the public would accept and not lynch them over. (I would have perferred a lynch worthy ending, but I am probably in the minority.)
    Burton did the same thign.

    And before anyone tries to make a point that the first movie did not, remember: You've told us it was all just a giant commercial. You want to talk about 'selling' to the audience? It doesn't get much bigger than that.

    Speaking of everything going according to plan. Let me relate my favorite scene of the movie.

    The puppet scene.
    That was... perfect.

    It showed several key elements of Wonka's personality.

    1. His childish sense of pleasure.
    2. His egomania.
    3. His trickery.
    4. His malevolence.
    I disagree with most of what you just said here, and I will cover your points one by one. The over all reaon i disagree with you though is that your "key elements of Wonka's personality" don't fit the Wonka of the movie. It sounds more like you are describing a child like man. Really he was a child like child. A child that never grew up.

    First. Those puppets were obviously well-used. They were not newly constructed for just this little show. They’d sung and danced their routine for quite some time. Wonka took pleasure in watching them sing and dance and make merry. He did indeed. But. What else did he enjoy about them?
    I will agree that they weren't new. The cobwebs and faded paint showed age, but well used?
    Well used puppets wouldn't have cobwebs. The secret lies in thinking of him as a child.
    He wanted them one day and soon lost interest. There they sat, unused, until that day.

    Secondly, if the puppet show was built in the front of the factory, in clear view of the gates, we can hardly say he watched them all the time. They made it quite clear no body had seen him in years. That isn't a claim that could be made if he sat out front of his factory watching puppet shows every other day, now is it?

    You could say that they were moved there from some other part of the factory, but then why would they be in such disrepair when everything else in in that factory seemed clean and well maintained.

    Second. Those puppets were sycophants who sung the praises of Wonka to the high heavens. Wonka loves having his ego stroked. Even if only by puppets.
    To tell the truth, I’m torn on this. On one end, I can easily see Wonka being this egomaniac. But, on the other I wonder about his need for puppets to be the strokers of ego. Aren’t the Oompas enough for him?
    Your second point only holds true if the first is. The kid wanted a puppet show. Then he let the toy sit there, unused. Secondly, according to the movie, not only did he give them a place free of preditors and give them their favorite food, but i never saw them worshiping him in the movie. For that matter, I wouldn't saw I saw any special deferment to him either. He is their boss, yes, and someone who gave them a better life, but recall the scene on the mountain. They waved at him as he flew by. One doesn't wave happily at a master or a god. They wave at a friend.

    Third. And this is the key element to me. It shows his trickery.
    I’ve spoken of Wonka as a coyote. And I do so for a simple reason. The coyote, in Native American lore, is a trickster much the same as Loki. However, Loki is deemed as evil where the coyote is neutral at worst. Good at best. The coyote tricks you into learning. The coyote teaches.

    So does Wonka.
    Good and Evil are more concerns of adults. Children do things for fun.
    He wanted to see the show. That much was obvious. It makes sense if you think of how a child would think. Yeah, he is suppossed to be in that chair, but then how would he see anything. This is only crowned with the ending: the puppets going up in flames. That isn't the ending of a egomaniac. That isn't even the ending of an adult for that matter. It the end that a child would write. The only thing missing was a huge exposion.

    So. Back to the puppets. There are a couple of levels of trickery going on here. The first is when the great throne-like chair rises empty. One is led to wonder what happened to Wonka? Is he running a little slow today? Maybe he’s got a game leg and missed his queue? What could have happened?
    And then the fireworks begin firing and the horrifying melting and eyeball popping begins and one is led to think how horrible this is all is and how lucky it was that Wonka wasn’t in that chair. He’d be flash fried and the tour would be over before it began.

    But.
    And here’s the kicker.
    The whole thing went off as planned without a hitch.
    Agreed. I wondered for a second what was going on. I knew that he would be out there with them when the chair was empty though. It was obvious.
    How he reacted only gave us a huge clue into his character.

    And there’s a lesson to be learned in that, I think.

    Fourth. Wonka is malevolent. What he did to those loyal puppets was cruel beyond measure. Those puppets had danced and sang for him for years. Never a harsh word. Never an improper turn of phrase.

    And he laughed gleefully as they melted in a most grotesque manner.
    A couple of points on that:
    An adult wouldn't be ammused by this unless they were a simpleton. Wonka isn't that. Not even in this film. A child would be ammused though.
    Secondly, an adult would never question the 'fellings' of puppets. They are puppets for christ's sake.

    A child might though.....
    And most likely, after the fact. Children aren't known for thinking about the consequences of thier actions.

    He does, of course, show his sympathy later when he sets up a puppet hospital and burn unit. You have to give him that. Wonka does feel bad after he’s been bad. Of course, that doesn’t stop him from being bad, does it?
    Sounds alot like a child to me.
    An adult would have simply made more puppets.


    On Mike Teavee.
    I don’t agree with you that he has no imagination and only pukes up what he’s swallowed whole.
    He beat the system.
    He found his Golden Ticket by opening one candy bar. There was no book in the world that taught that.
    I think that you can say the song might fit him in the sense that he is of the logical world. He can make no sense of Wonka’s world and it’s for that that he is maligned. I can see it. However, the sense of the song is calling him stupid. There can be little doubt of that.
    “Television rots your brain,” is the cry.
    And it’s ironic that Mike Teavee’s brain might well be considered warped, but not rotten.
    Yes. He beat the system. He took what he knew about how things like this are done. He looked it up on the internet. He calculated odds. He didn't do anything imaginative. He took what he knew and reguritated it.
    True. There probably wasn't a book at the local library called "how to win a golden ticket by only buying one candy bar" or "the secret to wonka's contest". He didn't do it through imagination. He did it through facts. Through application of knowledge. Through math. He did it the way a computer would. Last I checked, computers weren't known for their imagination.


    The sheared sheep. Yup. I thought the same thing.
    Cotton candy.
    And of course one is led inexorably to thoughts of out west where the men are men and the sheep are nervous. After all, does Wonka only have sex with Oompas? If so, then why isn’t their genome corrupted with his?
    There should be little Wonka-headed Oompas running around.
    Of course, maybe they’re made into fudge.
    That is..
    that's just wrong.
    Man...
    wrong.


    I don’t exactly think you could call it a real world answer.
    The point I was making is that almost everything in the first was explained by science. A real world answer.
    There werew a few things thrown in there. It was almost as if they threw them in just to show off special effects and emphasize that wonka was magical.
    If I asked you to explain the fizzy lifting drink, could you? (that being one big things that ws different for the first to the second)
    If I asked you to explain the bird hatching, could you explain that?

    Another thing was the feel of the factory. The first one seemed real. Like it was a factory. Like it could exist in that building.
    The second seemed bigger that the factory itself. Almost like a different world all together.
    Something real vs. something magical.

    How did the movie end?
    Did you know the original script ended with “Grandpa says Yippee!!”
    That’s right.
    That was the ending.
    They had to track down the writer from the wilds of his vacation in Maine to squeeze one last line from him.
    And what was that line?
    The cheesiest, most cornball line that he could think of. One that he thought would get him laughed out of the business.

    He lived happily ever after.

    Does that sound like a real world answer to you?
    That sounds like the end of the movie and not something withing the movie itself. I'm talking about the world that exists in the movie.


    Damn. I'd love to say more. These movie can be analyzed deeper and deeper without end. But I'll refrain for the moment.
    Here is something funny that i have noticed, and go back and look at the posts if you like.
    There is almost no questioning of the first movie. None. Nothing is debated except peoples personal feelings about the characters.
    Anytime something is brought up, it is in realtions to the book or the behind the scenes stuff (the picture, comercial, etc.)

    But when it comes to the second, There are actual points to question and debate. "Why did he do this?"
    "What do you think that ment?"
    "what are the repercussions of this?"

    It's funny that the movie that two people are claiming is so much more obvious, dumbed down, and less thought provoaking is the one that has all the questions being asked about it and disagreements concerning it's meaning.

    **edited to correct a few errors. don't you hate it when your mind gets ahead of your fingers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Thank you. But, it would appear that the 'cynical maiden' didn't have anything to say concerning my post. I guess I will content myself with answering you.
    Perhaps her cynicism grows ever stronger. I wonder. When was the last time she watched Wilder's Wonka limp down the red carpet? I know it's been awhile. She doesn't even know what color the man's hat was. (She thinks it was purple. Can you imagine?)

    Anyway. So glad you can 'content' yourself with a reply to my post. I apologize for not being as fulfilling as a gobstopper or perhaps that stick of gum that Violet chewed so... gracefully.

    Heh. I'm reminded now of something that will surely raise the ire of our dear Abraxas. A scene from The Family Guy.
    <blockquote>Wonka: Are you sure you didn't eat anything from my factory?
    [we see Peter, who is blue and inflated like a blueberry]
    Peter: Yes!
    Wonka: I'm just saying that--
    Peter: What, are you calling me a liar?!
    Wonka: No. I'm just saying...
    Peter: Hey screw you, Wonka! </blockquote>

    Anyway. I'll take a cue from Our Lady of Cynicism and give you an I.O.U. for a more in depth response, but I can't resist responding in part.

    The almost but not quite effect? The haunting similarity to the original that is still so distint and distinct?

    Never noticed.
    Nope. That's not it.
    I'll give Abraxas a chance to solve it. Or perhaps Mr. Carpet Ride might try his hand. And then I'll spill... the beans.

    It's really quite... interesting. I wonder if it was intended or accidental?
    You'll kick yourself when I tell you.


    So. Until then. Adieu.
    I shall return with chocolatey goodness at a more sociable hour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    In the second, admittedly, Depp's character was a wounded child that never learned what it ment to be an adult. In a way, however, that alone is a great thing. Imagine never loosing that innocence that one has when young. Never loosing what it means to accept what you cannot change. That, by itself, makes his portrayal something magical to me.
    Oh dear. Now I see Tafkam more clearly.

    To one degree or another, acceptance is surrender. Compromise is surrender.
    How long since you were a child? It's been quite a while for me, but I'll tell you one thing - I don't remember any "acceptance of what I could not change" as a child. Something either was or it wasn't, and if I didn't like it, something changed. It, or me being anywhere near it.
    I'm still a lot like that.

    If I was in a situation where I didn't like the world I was in, I bloody well made my own for a while. A big rock was a magical wonderland. A bucket of seaweed in which little plankton swam became a wondrous underwater city.
    That isn't "acceptance".

    Acceptance is a result of maturity, not childhood. And I'm using the word "maturity" in more a sense of tiredness than one of aquired wisdom - even though there are many who would try to convince you that that tiredness is wisdom.

    In the first, by contrast, I have trouble veiwing Wilder's wonka as anything but an eccentric adult. A recluse that pulled away from a world he didn't like.
    I think anyone would have trouble seeing him as anything other than this...
    And think about this - that "recluse" didn't sever all ties with the world. He simply chose those he did associate with very, very carefully. He wanted those he associated with to see what he saw, and here I'm not talking only of magic. He wanted to them to see what the reality was, gain that experience, and still see the magic, perhaps in spite of it.
    I'll say something else... don't think for a second he was simply going to hand over control of his factory. He staged his competition in order to find the raw material he could mould into his successor. Think of it in terms of a sculptor finding a lump of clay in which he percieves a final shape.
    Thats why the contestants were children.

    A man that wanted the magic that he had lost, but still a man that had lost it.
    What? You apparently have seen what he built, the care with which he began the search for his successor, and you're saying he lost it?

    I don't see innocence in Wilder.
    That is because he isn't an innocent. The first film doesn't give away much in the way of how Wonka came to be where he was. It doesn't really matter. The point is he has created his own world, one which he controls completely. An innocent could not do that, other than in the imagination.

    I don't see wonder. There is magic, yes, but it is not the magic of a child. That is where the true magic is, in my oppinion. The ability to look at the world and not know defeat. To not know that something is impossible. To not be bound by the 'rules' that apply to universe.
    That is the wonder. That is precisely what Wilder's Wonka is.
    Wilder's Wonka had the maturity to know what defeat was. He simply hadn't given in to it.

    You're equating magic with innocence. Why?
    You appear to be saying that an adult is incapable of magic. That the loss of innocence equates with the loss of magic.
    Not so. The good ones simply use their knowledge to further their own magic, to move it beyond the world of the imagination and make it a reality.

    I can't believe you can't see it.
    Well... yes, I do believe it.

    That is something that the first film lacks: The ability to make up your own mind. Everything is set for you. The only thing you can guess at is what came before and what comes after. What is the story that we aren't shown.
    And that proves it. I'm reduced to shaking my head in something approximating despair at this point.

    You are Mike Teevee.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic~Carpet~Ride
    Oh dear. Now I see Tafkam more clearly.
    You see only what you want to see. Unfortunately, truth is one thing you have never been interested in. The only thing you see "more clearly" is the image you have built of me in your mind. An image that doesn't measure up to what you think you are.

    Your ambitions are those of a sad little man that fools himself with delusions of self-importance. Why do you insist on nipping at my toes, little wolf?

    To one degree or another, acceptance is surrender. Compromise is surrender.
    How long since you were a child? It's been quite a while for me, but I'll tell you one thing - I don't remember any "acceptance of what I could not change" as a child. Something either was or it wasn't, and if I didn't like it, something changed. It, or me being anywhere near it.
    I'm still a lot like that.
    What isn't surprising is that it was beyond you to understand my intention in that statement. Instead you latch onto a typo in hopes of proving... what exactly? That I don't recall what it's like to be a child, or that you're "still a lot like that"?
    Most people dislike admitting their childish behavior. You seem to revel in yours.
    That isn't surprising either.

    If I was in a situation where I didn't like the world I was in, I bloody well made my own for a while. A big rock was a magical wonderland. A bucket of seaweed in which little plankton swam became a wondrous underwater city.
    That isn't "acceptance".
    Wonderful. Keep going on and on about the typo. Was that the only point you could find to form an argument against?
    Ordinarily, finding that the only weak point I have in an argument is a typo would be a great compliment. Coming from you however...

    Acceptance is a result of maturity, not childhood. And I'm using the word "maturity" in more a sense of tiredness than one of aquired wisdom - even though there are many who would try to convince you that that tiredness is wisdom.
    Speaking of tired: You've managed to take three paragraphs to point out a typo. I should thank you for being such a thorough editor.

    I think anyone would have trouble seeing him as anything other than this...
    All right. You're agreeing with me. So what is your point?

    And think about this - that "recluse" didn't sever all ties with the world. He simply chose those he did associate with very, very carefully. He wanted those he associated with to see what he saw, and here I'm not talking only of magic.
    It has actually been something I have brought up in quite a few conversations you weren't privy to.
    I would ask you exactly what magic you are talking about, since it is obvious that you don't understand the kind I've been speaking of.

    Perhaps if you had actually seen the movie and formed your own opinions that were based on something other than petty venom and jealousy coupled with an attempt to curry favor by blindly agreeing with others, you would be able to better follow along.

    He wanted to them to see what the reality was, gain that experience, and still see the magic, perhaps in spite of it.
    I didn't see any "magic" of the kind I was addressing in the first film.
    Again, you need to go see the movie.

    I'll say something else... don't think for a second he was simply going to hand over control of his factory. He staged his competition in order to find the raw material he could mould into his successor. Think of it in terms of a sculptor finding a lump of clay in which he perceives a final shape.
    Thats why the contestants were children.
    That is a great point. How manipulation of others speaks of the innocent magic I was talking about though, I fail to see. If anything, it speaks of pettiness and deceit.
    It's no wonder that you would find this character so admirable.

    What? You apparently have seen what he built, the care with which he began the search for his successor, and you're saying he lost it?
    Once again, if you had bothered to see the new film, perhaps you would be able to understand how I could come to that conclusion. Considering the ill-conceived tripe that has dribbled from your keyboard up to this point, however, I sincerely doubt it.
    I speak of the innocent magic of children. Please try to keep up.
    The distinction between the two Wonkas, the one you are familiar with and the one you haven't bothered yourself to see, is the distinction between a child's wonder and an adults carefully constructed illusion. One is magical. The other is a parlor trick.
    Yes, sir, I am saying he lost his innocence. That he did indeed grow up and become an adult. A point you agreed with earlier in this silly argument you have tried to build.
    Do stop contradicting yourself, or at the very least acquaint yourself with the subject matter instead of trying to bullshit your way through it.

    That is because he isn't an innocent. The first film doesn't give away much in the way of how Wonka came to be where he was. It doesn't really matter. The point is he has created his own world, one which he controls completely. An innocent could not do that, other than in the imagination.
    Very good. Now you are catching on. Now what would you say if that innocent's imagination could become reality?
    You might say something along the lines of this:
    "Ok. I went and saw the movie. My petty little mind can almost comprehend what you are talking about now. "

    That is the wonder. That is precisely what Wilder's Wonka is.
    Wilder's Wonka had the maturity to know what defeat was. He simply hadn't given in to it.
    Do you realize how contradictory what you just said is?
    He was defeated, but he hasn't given up. If one hasn't given up, they are still fighting. If they are still fighting, you can hardly claim that they have been defeated. Unless of course you are making the claim that Wonka is so powerless that he can't help but lose.

    You're equating magic with innocence. Why?
    You appear to be saying that an adult is incapable of magic. That the loss of innocence equates with the loss of magic.
    Not so. The good ones simply use their knowledge to further their own magic, to move it beyond the world of the imagination and make it a reality.
    Magic, by definition, is supernatural in nature. It is something that exists beyond the normal reality. If it's found in reality, it isn't really magical, now is it?
    Magic exists in innocence. It is the loss of that of that innocence that takes us from believing in wonderment to trying to figure out how it was done.
    If someone came to you and told you that they could take you to meet the queen of the fairies, would you think of them as giving you a magical opportunity or as being a fool?

    Not a hard concept to grasp.

    "I can't believe you can't see it.
    Well... yes, I do believe it. "


    And that proves it. I'm reduced to shaking my head in something approximating despair at this point.

    You are Mike Teevee.
    I'm Mike Teevee because I am disagreeing with other people’s opinions and making up my own mind instead of just buying what I'm sold? Considering you are the one the is believing what other's are telling you with out even trying to make up your own mind, I think you might want to look in the mirror next time you say that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    "Magic Carpet Ride",

    If you have issues to resolve, then resolve them elsewhere.

    This thread is not one of squabbling and bullshit territorial pissings. This is a thread on Wonka and magic and chocolate. If you want to piss in the fudge, then make a thread on Slugworth and have at it.


    Tafkam,

    Follow your own advice. He's clearly just trying to get a rise out of you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    Tafkam,

    Follow your own advice. He's clearly just trying to get a rise out of you.
    It needed to be said. His continuing denigration of a subject that he has no experience with was getting tiresome.

    No worries, though. I'm not angry.
    It's just sad that he wouldn't at least have the respect to keep it out of this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    The guy is clearly a lovely example of what was being talked about earlier and I said so. If you want to suit around listening to gendankens own arguments being used against the first movie because the lad hasn't got anything left, then go ahead. This isn't an argument anymore, its several people trying to explain to someone something he can't see.
    It has become boring.

    As for "issues"...
    Quote, invert.
    "See.
    That's what happens when you comment on a moive you haven't seen."
    who started what now?

    I suggest you take your wishy washy hypocritical ass into your bathroom and take a good long look into a mirror. Have you been listening to what he's actually saying?
    I think you're here for other reasons than this being an "interesting thread".
    aren't you.

    Issues, my ass. Go resolve your own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    "This thread is not one of squabbling and bullshit territorial pissings."

    "It needed to be said. His continuing denigration of a subject that he has no experience with was getting tiresome. "

    Priceless. Absolutely fucking priceless.

    Come on guys... aren't you laughing? I am.

    And don't continue to assume I have "no experience of the subject".
    Tafkam clearly has no idea of what he's talking about with regard to the original movie either, but no one appears to be taking him to task for it. Why is that? Hmm?

    absolutely-fucking-fascinating, you lot are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Still working on a reply.

    "If you want to piss in the fudge, then make a thread on Slugworth and have at it"

    And you cannot see...that the first to piss in the fudge was Tafkam?

    "absolutely-fucking-fascinating, you lot are."


    Watch it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Abraxas,

    And you cannot see...that the first to piss in the fudge was Tafkam?
    No. Not really.
    I'd say that the tone of Tafkam's response was a direct result of the tone of the post he was responding to.

    I don't see Tafkam 'pissing in the fudge' first. Unless you're referring to his earlier posts where he hadn't even seen the movie yet. In those cases then I'd agree on a limited basis.

    As to his posts after he saw the movie. Yeah. He doesn't agree with you, me, or Carpet Ride, but so what? That's his perogative.

    I guess it would be a short thread if we all agreed.
    In fact, I think it was pretty much over until he came back to ressurect it and disagree with what we saw in the movie.


    Anyway.
    I personally would prefer such dramas stay out of this thread. This is a topic that is near and dear to my heart and I'd like it to remain pure.
    But. Your thread. Your rules.

    If it turns into a pissing contest though, I'm out.
    Whoever's fault it is. I don't care.


    I anxiously await the long-promised reply, Abraxas.


    Edit:
    I tell you what. On second consideration and a third read-through of Carpet Ride's post... I'll say that perhaps I merely interpreted it as harsher than it was actually intended. There were several key phrases involved which I feel characterize the tone that Tafkam responded to and was the reason I addressed my statement about issues to Carpet Ride rather than to Tafkam.

    But perhaps it was all just misunderstanding.

    Whatever the case, let's just keep the drama down to a minimum. That's all I'm saying and all I'm going to say on this matter.

    My next post will be on-topic rather than this meta-bullshit.

    And. I'll do Abraxas a favor and wait for her to post as I have added enough grist to the mill without adding more before she's had a chance to speak her piece.



    Anyway.
    I think we all know it was plainly Coffee that was the first to piss in the fudge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Tafkam Aruhpe
    You see only what you want to see. Unfortunately, truth is one thing you have never been interested in. The only thing you see "more clearly" is the image you have built of me in your mind. An image that doesn't measure up to what you think you are.
    Ummm...

    Your ambitions are those of a sad little man that fools himself with delusions of self-importance. Why do you insist on nipping at my toes, little wolf?
    ...I think you're telling me I'm supposed to know who you are. I don't. I was responding to your posts in this thread, and nothing else.

    To one degree or another, acceptance is surrender. Compromise is surrender.
    How long since you were a child? It's been quite a while for me, but I'll tell you one thing - I don't remember any "acceptance of what I could not change" as a child. Something either was or it wasn't, and if I didn't like it, something changed. It, or me being anywhere near it.
    I'm still a lot like that.
    What isn't surprising is that it was beyond you to understand my intention in that statement. Instead you latch onto a typo in hopes of proving... what exactly? That I don't recall what it's like to be a child, or that you're "still a lot like that"?
    I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm telling you. I remember quite clearly what it was to be a child. Neither did I say you didn't. I simply don't care for your "argument".

    Regarding this "typo" thing.
    What typo? a typo is a mistake, usually in spelling. There were a few of those, but that is not what I "latched on to". Here is what you said :

    In the second, admittedly, Depp's character was a wounded child that never learned what it ment to be an adult. In a way, however, that alone is a great thing. Imagine never loosing that innocence that one has when young. Never loosing what it means to not accept what you cannot change. That, by itself, makes his portrayal something magical to me.
    This isn't a typo. This a statement of how you saw things.
    I pointed out where I see you as being wrong. Now if you are backing down on the point, then say so, rather than squirming away by calling it a typo.

    Most people dislike admitting their childish behavior. You seem to revel in yours.
    That isn't surprising either.
    So you have encountered me before. Who is the one with preformed opinions then... me?

    Or you?

    If I was in a situation where I didn't like the world I was in, I bloody well made my own for a while. A big rock was a magical wonderland. A bucket of seaweed in which little plankton swam became a wondrous underwater city.
    That isn't "acceptance".
    Wonderful. Keep going on and on about the typo. Was that the only point you could find to form an argument against?
    Ordinarily, finding that the only weak point I have in an argument is a typo would be a great compliment. Coming from you however...
    So you admit it was a weak point. You could have just said so and not bothered with all the dross.

    Acceptance is a result of maturity, not childhood. And I'm using the word "maturity" in more a sense of tiredness than one of aquired wisdom - even though there are many who would try to convince you that that tiredness is wisdom.
    Speaking of tired: You've managed to take three paragraphs to point out a typo. I should thank you for being such a thorough editor.
    Ever bothered to point out longwindedness in anyone else? Or just me?

    I think anyone would have trouble seeing him as anything other than this...
    All right. You're agreeing with me. So what is your point?
    That I agree with you. That you see magic combined with experience as a negtive point where I see it as positive. That's about it.

    It has actually been something I have brought up in quite a few conversations you weren't privy to.
    Marvellous. Don't forget to twist the blade, will you? It makes the internal damage almost insurviveable.
    And with that little attempt, I think...

    I would ask you exactly what magic you are talking about, since it is obvious that you don't understand the kind I've been speaking of.
    I've just figured out....

    Perhaps if you had actually seen the movie and formed your own opinions that were based on something other than petty venom and jealousy coupled with an attempt to curry favor by blindly agreeing with others, you would be able to better follow along.
    .... who you are.
    On reflection, "Little Wolf" should have been a clue. Still can't use anything of your own?

    Oh... of course. Now I also see how you knew who I was, when I haven't used this nick in rather a long time. It's all so clear now...

    This just suddenly became hilarious. Thank you. Thank all of you.
    *chuckle*



    I'll say something else... don't think for a second he was simply going to hand over control of his factory. He staged his competition in order to find the raw material he could mould into his successor. Think of it in terms of a sculptor finding a lump of clay in which he perceives a final shape.
    Thats why the contestants were children.
    That is a great point. How manipulation of others speaks of the innocent magic I was talking about though, I fail to see. If anything, it speaks of pettiness and deceit.
    It's no wonder that you would find this character so admirable.
    Why do you insist on telling me I'm speaking of the kind of magic you were speaking of when I thought I'd made it quite clear that they are two separate things?
    I know I'm inclined toward Wilder. I've taken great pains to point it out. Interesting, though. You see the moulding of a basic shape as being manipulative.
    therefore, every mother in the world who teaches her child is manipulative... right? Every father trying to teach his child everything he knows is being manipulative.

    Nice outlook. Good luck with that.




    I said you were Mike Teevee because I knew what I was in for before seeing the new movie. Now I've seen it, and I was right. It's very pretty, by the way. And easily forgotten. Time will show you how easily, if you remember yourself in a few years that you liked it and wonder if anyone else still remembers it in the way Wilder's Wonka is still remembered.

    You, on the other hand, prefer the new one. You like everything explained for you, and you can't see how the first Wonka left things open to interpretation. You like how Depp's Wonka had his past laid out for you, leaving you free of the need to wonder about how he got where he was. You like having his character "given" to you.
    I don't. Quite simple.

    *Edit - 8:19pm, Tue 02/08/05.
    Deleted huge chunks from my original reply, left you with what you asked for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Junior Cottontop3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Magic~Carpet~Ride
    You like everything explained for you, and you can't see how the first Wonka left things open to interpretation. You like how Depp's Wonka had his past laid out for you, leaving you free of the need to wonder about how he got where he was. You like having his character "given" to you.
    I don't. Quite simple.
    I don't either. I loved Wilder as Wonka. Very intriguing. Wish I was more like Him!
    Death Beckons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    Back at work, a couple of hours later... and I'm still chuckling.

    I had no idea. Abso-lootely no fucking eye deer.
    You whispering little birdies you.

    Hilarious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    I'll be kind just this once.

    Don't make an idiot of yourself.
    Go back read what you quoted the first time.
    Then read what you quoted the second.
    Compare the two.
    Notice there is a difference between them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    I don't see Tafkam 'pissing in the fudge' first. Unless you're referring to his earlier posts where he hadn't even seen the movie yet. .
    As to his posts after he saw the movie. Yeah. He doesn't agree with you, me, or Carpet Ride, but so what? That's his perogative
    Pissing in the fudge, Mr. Invert, is not disagreement.
    Pissing in the fudge, Mr. Invert, is the use of an insult or a jibe or what the science man, like Teevee, would call an ad hominem.

    I mean, you did catch the poor, defenseless girl being called a bad nut a page ago, one with no sense of wonder or awe?
    Who couldn’t even come close to winning the factory because her maturity has aged her mind as gracefully as limburger, cottage and bluecheese?
    Or would you like a reminder?
    The prize is light for those not willing to work for the real one. You were happy with the truck full of chocolate. you didn't come close to winning the factory.
    I guess you are a bad nut.
    You cannot understand a fairytale in fairyland....

    That, Mr. Invert, is pissing in fudge.
    True, quoting you out context was not exactly wise as it leaves out what you meant by it, but in the end urine is urine.

    SO!
    Where was I, now that that I’ve got alllll day to deal with a nasty little child who dared disagree with me?
    That’s right, disclaimers.
    320 in all- which you all read not once but thrice, consulted with lawyers twice over, got back to me promptly signed, sealed and stamped with your signatures which as an actual fact of reality you’ve all conveniently forgotten. Magic.

    Disclaimer number 4 stated in clear Times New Roman:

    I, the undersigned,
    shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein
    and herein contained, et cetera, et cetera . . .
    Hear that?
    “Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera” which in the old Saxon tongue means “As soon as I enter another’s insanity or, herein extended, their thread”

    You have NO rights here.

    Tafkam, you mumbler.

    Movies aside, I give you two people.

    The first is a character who at every turn and corner reveals the impossible made possible, not just because you’re witnessing an absurdity, like a mountain dripping with fudge which anyone with a crayon can scribble on cardboard paper, but also because of the confidence of matured pride, even arrogance, that made it real is now showing to you.

    Now look, he’s smashed his face through a wall by walking right into it and his nose breaks in half- the quiet gasp of disbelief ripples its way through the crowd. The shock! The bewilderment! How odd!.... and your surprise keeps you from seeing it is YOU being watched and not otherwise.
    He wanted the phlegmmatic and carefree to see blood.
    At any place, at any time, in any setting this person is in complete awareness of that which you are not or have difficulty even perceving, as is the case with those who use the word ‘compromise’ with neither the passion nor life nor empathy to know anything other than how to fucking spell it.

    Did I say fucking?
    The caloric contect of the average chocolate bar is 250; the fat, cholesterol and sugars are fists ramming their way through anything we call Health or Diet.
    Chocolate, therefore, is rude and obscene.
    I, therefore, make no apologies for the use of the word ‘fucking’.

    Now I give you the second person.
    Who’s a walking contradiction- is he or is he not the master of his universe?
    The whole world has spoken Wonka’s name as if it were god’s and the golden tickets, by god, well they’re more like Jehovoha allowing a peon named Moses a glimpse of his person than they are simple pieces of paper hidden in chocolate.

    And yet this is god? God, who represents the supernatural, the magical, the unbelievable, who is now recoiling form a pubescent boy who’s simply insulted him?
    A person so unsure of himself and so riddled with fear that its NOT a choosy recluse spinning his magic from cocoa at your expense but a social cripple whose every mistake and misstep is just that?
    He is therefore not completely aware of that which you are not and therefore not completely in control and therefore as vulnerable to chance as you are.

    To you, what we call innocence in children knows no defeat and therefore presumes control of its universe.
    Its this you call magic.
    But where is the magic in presuming without having?
    The second person has all the charm of Neverland…….. but the psychology of a five year old.
    It cannot make the impossible possible, but in its own mind.
    It cannot make the unthinkable thinkable, but in its own mind.
    It cannot make the natural unnatural, but in its on mind.
    A five year old mind could not produce that which he believes in.
    And since it cannot produce either, and since magic we take to mean the unnatural sprung from the natural then this natural person in possession of the unnatural we can only conclude to be fraudelent.

    That is why god and parents lose all the magic we once supposed them to have when young- time has shown us that their supernatural claims were not in allegiance with their natural dispositions and now we see them as common and helpless as we were in diapers.

    Seeing the master mastered- that’s where we lose all feelings of magic.
    And that is why Depp's Wonka, in custody of such dreams made reality, does not make sense.

    The second person of course is beautiful, but his beauty if that of a desert rose

    “Full many a flower is born to blush unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert air…..”- Gray

    To not know the limits of the world, is to be consumed by them.
    Wilder did.
    Depp did not.
    And that is what makes Depp unbelievable.

    Not the “unbelievable” of wonder and awe we have for a golden stalk shooting its way up to heaven from magical beans or a chocolate bird in a chocolate egg, but the “unbelievable” of wondering how such a person could ever be shrewd enough to cover every last one of your dreams in pure chocolate and feed them to you.

    Two factories, two men, two fiends with a flare for the magical and only one of them in that facotry would not have been as vulnerable to chance as you are. And that is Wilder.
    Who had all the worldly wise and willy wiles of confident maturity to not only make it all thinkable but possible.
    How?
    Magic.


    So Tafkam, you mumbler..you make valid points.
    If the first movie were so thought provoking, why then is it so explainable?
    But then again, see, the magic is more feeling the warmth of your brain filling the mystery of who Wonka is, why Wonka is, and what happened to those nasty little children, the factory and Charlie without being told.

    And you, sir, have forfeited all rights to ask questions or dispute me as soon as you signed the disclaimer.

    MUMBLER!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Before I forget.

    "Turd Blossom."
    Knowing the world is shit.
    Knowing its people are shit.
    Knowing that life would as soon defecate on your soul as pretend to give it its secrets. And therefore is shit.
    Who but someone who first experiences and recognizes it as shit can grow a blossom and keep it alive in its stench?

    The ignorance of children?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Pissing in the fudge, Mr. Invert, is the use of an insult or a jibe or what the science man, like Teevee, would call an ad hominem.
    Yes, invert. Keep aware of that whole Ad hom thing that I have the monopoly on.

    I mean, you did catch the poor, defenseless girl being called a bad nut a page ago, one with no sense of wonder or awe?
    Poor? Defenseless?
    Is she talking about the same girl that says to us:

    You have NO rights here.
    It must have been to emphasize the defenselessness that she said it.

    Who couldn’t even come close to winning the factory because her maturity has aged her mind as gracefully as limburger, cottage and bluecheese?
    I wasn't about to guess at why you you mind no longer dreams. Tell me, oh mature one, are you pround of being so old? Do you wear the weight of your years with pride and vainity, dying your hair to hide the grays or are you still young enough not to care what others think of you?

    Which is more important to you, tying your hair back in ribbons and bows to make yourself pretty for the world or being who you are?

    I wonder if any part of you still believes in magic and chocolate factories.
    In giants, and miracles, oompa loompas, and golden geese. I wonder if you can remember what it was like to look around you and experience the world with fresh eyes, taking it all in with a hunger.

    And if the answer is no,
    Or would you like a reminder?




    That, Mr. Invert, is pissing in fudge.
    True, quoting you out context was not exactly wise as it leaves out what you meant by it, but in the end urine is urine.
    urine is urine, but magic isn't magic...

    SO!
    Where was I, now that that I’ve got alllll day to deal with a nasty little child who dared disagree with me?
    That’s right, disclaimers.
    320 in all- which you all read not once but thrice, consulted with lawyers twice over, got back to me promptly signed, sealed and stamped with your signatures which as an actual fact of reality you’ve all conveniently forgotten. Magic.
    Magic? The "magic" of adults perhaps. Parlor tricks and slight of hand. Smoke and mirrors. Misdirection and lies.
    Lies.

    Lies.
    No disclaimers, no lawyers. No 320...
    But at least your are trying to use that imagination. The key is to make others want to believe, not to tell them they must.

    Disclaimer number 4 stated in clear Times New Roman:

    I, the undersigned,
    shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein
    and herein contained, et cetera, et cetera . . .
    Hear that?
    “Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera” which in the old Saxon tongue means “As soon as I enter another’s insanity or, herein extended, their thread”

    You have NO rights here.
    Rights, lefts, ups and downs.
    I have alot of directions still. My glass elevator doesn't only go up and down, after all. It goes anywhere I want.
    Anywhere.
    Your's only goes up and down.

    Sad that you've limited yourself that way.

    Tafkam, you mumbler.
    Odd. You would choose the words that a "social cripple" would use when he "is now recoiling form a pubescent boy who’s simply insulted him?"
    Perhaps that is why you dislike Depp's portrayal; It reminds you too much of yourself? You long for the control that Wilder had? Is that it?

    Well you won't get it from blind obedience to the rote. You shall not achieve it through only skimming the surface and not bothering to look deeper.

    And you sure as hell will not acquire it by ignoring what is there in front of you. And I quote:

    I've managed to drag myself out of my existance, which is anything but magical (for the most part at least) and went out to see this new version of an old classic. Except it isn't that at all, is it.

    These are two movies that, although they share characters, plotline, and devices, aren't exactly related. They are very distinct entities, each with their own charm and, to be honest, faults.
    From the begining, it was never my wish to compare the two. I've only sought to defend the second a bit from those that would, for no good reason, belittle it because they are unable to see the wonder that does exist there if they want to see it.

    In the begining, you claimed to at least attempt to remain unbiased. To look at each as if the other didn't exist. So why then do you insist on comparisons of the two?
    One must be better than the other. One must be wittier than the other.
    Up and down. Up and down.
    But mine goes any way I want. Up ways, down ways, side ways, long ways...

    I liked them both. Both have their flaws.
    Why is that so difficult for you to accept?

    Do yourself a favor. Go back and reread the post I made here that has you all up in arms. The first one I made after seeing the movie.

    Then show me where I am claiming that the first movie isn't good.
    Or where the second is better.
    Or where Depp's Wonka is better than Wilder's.

    Try. Go ahead. Just try.

    Movies aside, I give you two people.
    Movies aside, you'll give us to people. Both from the movies that we just, supposedly, put aside.

    You should give up trying to give the impression of being unbiased.
    You're horrible at it.

    The first is a character who at every turn and corner reveals the impossible made possible, not just because you’re witnessing an absurdity, like a mountain dripping with fudge which anyone with a crayon can scribble on cardboard paper, but also because of the confidence of matured pride, even arrogance, that made it real is now showing to you.

    ...

    A person so unsure of himself and so riddled with fear that its NOT a choosy recluse spinning his magic from cocoa at your expense but a social cripple whose every mistake and misstep is just that?
    He is therefore not completely aware of that which you are not and therefore not completely in control and therefore as vulnerable to chance as you are.


    One you paint up with terms like awareness and pride.
    The other you describe with words like mistake and cripple.
    One you paint as a hero, saint and miracle worker, with the ability to read minds and know the unknowable.
    The other as retarded child and gimp who jumps at his own shadow.

    Yes.
    Give us two people. One has already been elevated to the top of the mountain and the other kicked down into the gutter, by you, before you tell us to make up our minds.

    To you, what we call innocence in children knows no defeat and therefore presumes control of its universe.
    Now where did you come up with that idea?

    Its this you call magic.
    Nope again.

    But where is the magic in presuming without having?
    presuming with out having?
    without having what exactly.
    Perhaps if I weren't so busy trying to prevent you from making up my mind for me I might have an easier time following you.

    Here's a novel approach: Why don't you try outlining what you believe instead of guessing at what it is that I do.
    (you might have more luck)

    The second person has all the charm of Neverland…….. but the psychology of a five year old.
    It cannot make the impossible possible, but in its own mind.
    It cannot make the unthinkable thinkable, but in its own mind.
    It cannot make the natural unnatural, but in its on mind.
    A five year old mind could not produce that which he believes in.
    And since it cannot produce either, and since magic we take to mean the unnatural sprung from the natural then this natural person in possession of the unnatural we can only conclude to be fraudelent.
    You do realise that your entire argument is hopeless.
    You start by saying "let's put the movies aside".
    You then go on to describe him as he was in the movie.
    But now I am supposed to pull im out of the movie again so that he can't do what he can do in the movie.

    It's also where the two characters exist.
    With that in mind let's revise what you've said.
    "he second person has all the charm of Neverland…….. but the psychology of a five year old.
    It can make the impossible possible.
    It can make the unthinkable thinkable.
    It can make the natural unnatural.
    A five year old mind that could produce that which he believes in."
    And not just in his own mind, but anywhere, anytime.

    SO let's give your favorite the same treatment.
    We will pull him out of his carefully constructed world and see how he fairs.
    A egomaniac that apparently has a things for midgets and children. Other than that, he dislikes people. He walks around falling down and performing similar tricks anytime he meets people just to get attention.
    He's not known to often give straight answers, but instead will quote obscure references that don't always appear to tie in with the conversation in ways that one would call 'normal'.
    If challenged, he is quick to loose his temper.

    This man that you so admire would most likely be jobless, friendless, and penniless. He seems to be lacking on social skills, and might even suffer from a severe psychosis.

    I think you get the point.

    We are 'discussing' (and I use that term loosely) characters. Fictional characters. They exist in fictional worlds. This is quickly running the risk of sounding alot like this.
    Why don't we just leave the character in their own words and not turn this into who could beat up who.

    That is why god and parents lose all the magic we once supposed them to have when young- time has shown us that their supernatural claims were not in allegiance with their natural dispositions and now we see them as common and helpless as we were in diapers.
    I will agree. But I will say it a different way: They were shown to be liars.

    Seeing the master mastered- that’s where we lose all feelings of magic.
    And that is why Depp's Wonka, in custody of such dreams made reality, does not make sense.
    I still don't see this whole "mastered" thing. You also keep making references to him recoiling in fear. Not the way I took it at all. I saw it as more of a disgust. But I am sure you'll tell me just how wrong my take on that is too.
    Having an oppinion that disagrees with your's is somethign re don't have a right to here.
    we
    "have NO rights here."

    The second person of course is beautiful, but his beauty if that of a desert rose

    “Full many a flower is born to blush unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert air…..”- Gray
    Too true.
    I guess we should be lucky that his 'sweetness' wasn't wasted on 'the desert air'.

    To not know the limits of the world, is to be consumed by them.
    Wilder did.
    Depp did not.
    And that is what makes Depp unbelievable.
    Now here, you've lost me. To not know the limits of the world?
    That is kinda the point. Depp's Wonka existed in a world without limits.
    That was the beauty of it.

    Not the “unbelievable” of wonder and awe we have for a golden stalk shooting its way up to heaven from magical beans or a chocolate bird in a chocolate egg, but the “unbelievable” of wondering how such a person could ever be shrewd enough to cover every last one of your dreams in pure chocolate and feed them to you.
    "Your dreams"?
    Now what are you babling about.
    Take your pick of either Wonks. Neither did things to make others happy. They did them to make themselves happy. It was their way or the highway. He certainly didn't care about Mike Teevae's dreams.
    Nor did he care about giving any of the other children what they wanted.
    Salt didn't get her squirel (or her goose. Take your pick)
    Gloop didn't even get to stay and eat!

    But now we are supposed to wonder at him not being able to take our dreams and cover them in chocolate?


    Two factories, two men, two fiends with a flare for the magical and only one of them in that facotry would not have been as vulnerable to chance as you are. And that is Wilder.
    Do tell: How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

    Who had all the worldly wise and willy wiles of confident maturity to not only make it all thinkable but possible.
    Right.....
    What exactly was supposed to be so impossible and unthinkable in the first movie in the first place?

    How?
    Magic.
    Please. You've explained to me what it think magic is. (horrible explanation, but at least you tried).
    Now could you please do me the favor of explaining what magic you are talking about, and how wisdom and wiles translates to it?



    So Tafkam, you mumbler..you make valid points.
    If the first movie were so thought provoking, why then is it so explainable?
    But then again, see, the magic is more feeling the warmth of your brain filling the mystery of who Wonka is, why Wonka is, and what happened to those nasty little children, the factory and Charlie without being told.
    So the only mysteries in the first movie are those of wondering what happened before and after it? In other words the first movie's mysteries exist in those things not in the first moive?
    Well...Of course!
    How could I have been so blind!
    obviously this is a special trait that no other movie has.
    I can't think of any other movie where you are left to wonder what happened before and what happened after....
    oh wait.
    I can.


    [quote]And you, sir, have forfeited all rights to ask questions or dispute me as soon as you signed the disclaimer.[quote]

    Good thing I never signed your disclaimer then, but instead only scrawled my mark across a bridge post.

    MUMBLER!
    Does that make you the vulnerable childish social cripple that we should all detest so much?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Before I forget.

    "Turd Blossom."
    Knowing the world is shit.
    Knowing its people are shit.
    Knowing that life would as soon defecate on your soul as pretend to give it its secrets. And therefore is shit.
    Who but someone who first experiences and recognizes it as shit can grow a blossom and keep it alive in its stench?

    The ignorance of children?
    Who but someone jaded, faded and robbed of their magic would see the world and all its people as such?
    Such a person would never try to grow your blossom. After all, life is just going to shit on them.

    A child wouldn't see the world that way. Innocence breeds hope. And hope is the one thing that will accomplish what no one thought was possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Tafkam Aruhpe
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Before I forget.

    "Turd Blossom."
    Knowing the world is shit.
    Knowing its people are shit.
    Knowing that life would as soon defecate on your soul as pretend to give it its secrets. And therefore is shit.
    Who but someone who first experiences and recognizes it as shit can grow a blossom and keep it alive in its stench?

    The ignorance of children?
    Who but someone jaded, faded and robbed of their magic would see the world and all its people as such?
    Such a person would never try to grow your blossom. After all, life is just going to shit on them.
    My apologies. I'm not going to just sit and watch this. I did fully intend to.

    Who? Someone who is not "jaded and faded". Someone who still keeps a grip on what is and what might be, and uses it to realise dreams. In spite of that knowing.
    Such a person would indeed grow your blossom. Reach down and pick out the healthy seed amongst the shit, and nurture it. Someone who knows what a healthy seed actually is, and is prepared to look for it without accepting less. Someone prepared to give it the environment it needs in order to flourish. Someone prepared to flush out the unhealthy seeds and never give them another thought, never give them the respect they demand without earning.
    Wilder's Wonka.

    A child wouldn't see the world that way. Innocence breeds hope. And hope is the one thing that will accomplish what no one thought was possible.
    Innocence does not breed hope. Hope is the result of knowing both adversity and an alternative.
    Innocence is destroyed by adversity.

    Those with knowledge and ability give those who hope what they hope for - hope by itself accomplishes nothing.

    But you're always free to hope that it will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Ok. I'm going to gather my magical senses about me once more. Return from the world of the drab and the mundane and put on my top hat (not purple, by the way) and delve once more into this fascinating and delectable topic.

    But. first.
    I must confess a disappointment in no one having guessed my riddle.
    I'm going to repeat it one final time. Issue the challenge once more.
    I want to see who has the eyes to see just what it is that I see.
    I know that if you do, then you'll be...
    delighted and mystified.

    <blockquote>Charlie: What would Augustus’s name already be doing in that Oompa Loompa song… unless
    Wonka: Improvisation is a party trick.
    Wonka: You. Little girl. Say something.
    Violet: Chewing Gum.
    Wonka. Chewing gum is really gross. Chewing gum I hate the most. See? It’s exactly the same.</blockquote>

    What just happened in this little exchange of dialog?
    Do you see?


    More later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    But. first.
    I must confess a disappointment in no one having guessed my riddle.
    I'm going to repeat it one final time. Issue the challenge once more.
    I want to see who has the eyes to see just what it is that I see.
    I know that if you do, then you'll be...
    delighted and mystified.

    <blockquote>Charlie: What would Augustus’s name already be doing in that Oompa Loompa song… unless
    Wonka: Improvisation is a party trick.
    Wonka: You. Little girl. Say something.
    Violet: Chewing Gum.
    Wonka. Chewing gum is really gross. Chewing gum I hate the most. See? It’s exactly the same.</blockquote>

    What just happened in this little exchange of dialog?
    Do you see?


    More later.
    That he called his next victim? Is that what you are referring to?

    Or perhaps you are saying that when he wsa saying "its exactly the same"
    he was trying to draw similarities between the two movies?

    I can see quite a few thigns going on in this snipit of conversation, but I am unsure what angle you are persuing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Wrong!

    Ok. I'm going to give.

    Here's the solution.


    The 'group' gets on Wonka about how the whole thing seemed contrived. I personally find this dynamic distasteful as it reeks of satire and parody. It pokes at the premise rather than sustaining it. It says, "Look. Yeah. We know the idea is stupid, but it's the story and we have to do it this way. But. We'll ridicule it just to let you know that we see it and are not taken in by it. Look how great we are...." That's what satire and parody is. (In this type of situation at least.)

    Now.
    They go through this once with Mr. Salt and Mike Teavee. And then they go through it again with Charlie. Why?
    Well. The main reason, perhaps, is that it's a segue into a flashback (if I remember right. And I'm pretty sure I do.)
    But. Another reason is more sly. And tricky.
    And it's really neat.
    It has to be done purposefully. I can't imagine that this is coincidental. But, it could be...

    Anyway.
    The answer.
    At last.
    Long last.

    Wonka, when questioned about 'improvisation', says it's easy. A party trick. And he demonstrates it.

    How does he demonstrate it?
    He asks a little girl to say something.
    Anything.

    Now.
    What little girl did he ask? (Very astute about her being the next victim, by the way. I didn't even consider that.)
    He asks Violet.

    Think about that.

    He asks Violet Beuregarde to say something.
    Anything.

    Now. What do you think that Violet might say?
    Apples?
    Squirrels?
    The air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

    Oh. Come now.
    We all know Violet has one thing and one thing only on her mind.

    What does she say?
    "Chewing gum."

    See?

    C.h.e.w.i.n.g. G.u.m.

    Are you surprised?
    Was Wonka?

    No. On both counts.

    So. Wonka takes her 'random word' and chews it up and blows a bubble.

    "Chewing gum is really gross. Chewing gum I hate the most."
    And then he says it's the exact same thing as the Oompas 'improvisation' with Augustus.
    And he's right.
    It is.

    Don't you see?!

    This is really fucking sweet.
    I've got a hard-on here.

    He could have said something wonderfully witty. Profound. Poetic. Anything. Because he KNEW that she'd say chewing gum.
    Just as he knew that the group would see through the contrived nature of the 'challenge'.
    Just as he knew that Augustus would get sucked up that pipe.
    Just as he knew everything that would happen.

    But. He didn't say something witty or profound or poetic. He said something stupid which made them all think that he's a fucking moron and that it's not the same thing at all.
    But it was the same thing.


    I must admit. That one thing is rather beautiful.
    It doesn't make up for the rest of the problems with the movie.
    But it is beautiful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by invert_nexus
    Wrong!
    Damn!!

    Ok. I'm going to give.
    Yeah!!

    Here's the solution.


    The 'group' gets on Wonka about how the whole thing seemed contrived. I personally find this dynamic distasteful as it reeks of satire and parody. It pokes at the premise rather than sustaining it. It says, "Look. Yeah. We know the idea is stupid, but it's the story and we have to do it this way. But. We'll ridicule it just to let you know that we see it and are not taken in by it. Look how great we are...." That's what satire and parody is. (In this type of situation at least.)
    Interesting idea indeed.
    I wonder if that is actually why it was written that way though. True, I can see your point here, on how it could be taken that way, but I am forced to wonder if that was exactly what the writer had in mind when he penned those lines. In a similar vein, can you tell me if I wrote that first sentence to this bit to purposely use alitteration, or was it just a happenstance?

    You proposed earlier that Depp's wonka went through the movie tipping his winking and nodding to the audience. I personally didn't see it that way. ( now "Kuffs".. that was a movie that really winked and nodded to the audience, but that was it's style...)
    But, if we assume that he was doing so through out the movie, then that strikes me as it would have been one of those times. I did n't really see it that way. The again, just my oppinion.

    Now.
    They go through this once with Mr. Salt and Mike Teavee. And then they go through it again with Charlie. Why?
    Well. The main reason, perhaps, is that it's a segue into a flashback (if I remember right. And I'm pretty sure I do.)
    But. Another reason is more sly. And tricky.
    And it's really neat.
    It has to done purposefully. I can't imagine that this is coincidental. But, it could be...
    Alright. Now that you mention the other examples, I can see how you can draw that impression. Hmm...
    I don't really see it as being satirical still, but that might be because of outside info. Burton and Depp are large Dahl fans, and this isn't the first movie they have worked on together based on one of his works. Also, considering that Burton did put such an emphasis on trying to remain true to the book and what he felt Dahl would have wanted, I find it difficult to imagine him letting something like that into the movie.

    In other words, I don't see him throwing a slight against the plot of the book into the movie when the whole reason he is doing the movie is because he likes the book and the author and is trying to do them both justice.

    Anyway.
    The answer.
    At last.
    Long last.

    Wonka, when questioned about 'improvisation', says it's easy. A party trick. And he demonstrates it.

    How does he demonstrate it?
    He asks a little girl to say something.
    Anything.

    Now.
    What little girl did he ask? (Very astute about her being the next victim, by the way. I didn't even consider that.)
    He asks Violet.

    Think about that.

    He asks Violet Beuregarde to say something.
    Anything.

    Now. What do you think that Violet might say?
    Apples?
    Squirrels?
    The air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

    Oh. Come now.
    We all know Violet has one thing and one thing only on her mind.

    What does she say?
    "Chewing gum."

    See?

    C.h.e.w.i.n.g. G.u.m.

    Are you surprised?
    Was Wonka?

    No. On both counts.
    You know, that is good. Very nice. I hadn't actually looked at that little exchange that closely before. It would just serve as another example of Wonka taking control of a situation that might have otherwise left him vulnerable.


    So. Wonka takes her 'random word' and chews it up and blows a bubble.

    "Chewing gum is really gross. Chewing gum I hate the most."
    And then he says it's the exact same thing as the Oompas 'improvisation' with Augustus.
    And he's right.
    It is.

    Don't you see?!
    Yes I do. Very nice.

    This is really fucking sweet.
    I've got a hard-on here.

    He could have said something wonderfully witty. Profound. Poetic. Anything. Because he KNEW that she'd say chewing gum.
    Just as he knew that the group would see through the contrived nature of the 'challenge'.
    Just as he knew that Augustus would get sucked up that pipe.
    Just as he knew everything that would happen.

    But. He didn't say something witty or profound or poetic. He said something stupid which made them all think that he's a fucking moron and that it's not the same thing at all.
    But it was the same thing.
    The twisted little layers you have built here are quite interesting. I was saying something similar at one point, but this sums it up much better than I did.

    I must admit. That one thing is rather beautiful.
    It doesn't make up for the rest of the problems with the movie.
    But it is beautiful.
    Oh, there is quite a bit more of a similar nature, if your of the mind to look for it.


    On a slightly removed topic, I am currently reading the book (well, both of them actually), and shall finish it sometime this weekend. Already I am seeing that there are some very obvious ways in which burton failed miserably to capture the essence of the book. He did do an amazing job in some aspects, but others that could have worked into the film so easily, especially considering his style of films, he simply chose to ignore.

    There ave been certain points in the book that are better captured by the first movie in my oppinion. I will have a more full summery when I finish.

    But, this whole thing has caused me to start doing alot of research into the "behind the scenes" things concerning the first movie.
    I wonder if they will film the sequal this time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Who but someone jaded, faded and robbed of their magic would see the world and all its people as such?
    Such a person would never try to grow your blossom. After all, life is just going to shit on them.

    A child wouldn't see the world that way. Innocence breeds hope. And hope is the one thing that will accomplish what no one thought was possible.
    Someone who ISN'T.

    Given the immortals of Gulliver's travels, did they ever know anguish? Despair?

    So just as someone whose never known death can never know anguish or despair, so someone who's never known anguish or despair or heartache or disillusionment introduced to him by a world gone to shit can never conceptualize the very thought of magic or beauty or hope.
    And THAT is what keeps one from dying, from fading and being robbed of this magic.

    I never knew about beauty and hope until I hit bottom.
    But then again, that's just me.


    Do yourself a favor. Go back and reread the post I made here that has you all up in arms. The first one I made after seeing the movie.

    Then show me where I am claiming that the first movie isn't good.
    Or where the second is better.
    Or where Depp's Wonka is better than Wilder's.

    Try. Go ahead. Just try.
    Now pull your chair up and do you the favor of sauntering through every last one of my posts and show to me in clear black and white any instance of me saying that Tafkam thinks the first movie awful, bad, horrific, as in not good
    Two, thinks the second is better
    Three, thinks Depp's Wonka far superior to the first.

    Lo behold, I never said you did. So, brilliance, try four now:

    If you in fact cannot find any of those instances up there, the point of you trying to send me off down some cul de sac for any mentions of me saying either three would be what exactly?
    Other than to point out basic human nature, that of smearing their adversaries into a huge pile of generalized mud.
    Carpet maintains Tafkam's preference for the second
    Carpet maintains Tafkam likes it all explained to him.
    Carpet maintains Tafkam this and Tafkam that.

    So Tafkam goes: "Hmm. Here's Gendanken as stuck on Wilder as Carpet is, they're both averse to the second one, and....Gendanken is not bieng that nice to me, so what does my gigantic mind conclude?
    Why, that Gendanken is saying the same thing!"

    That said, screw Abraxas-
    Gendanken : To you, what we call innocence in children knows no defeat and therefore presumes control of its universe.
    Takfam : Now where did you come up with that idea?
    Gendanken: Its this you call magic.
    Tafkam: Nope again.
    Gee, I wonder:
    How manipulation of others speaks of the innocent magic I was talking about though, I fail to see.

    I speak of the innocent magic of children
    Never loosing what it means to not accept what you cannot change. That, by itself, makes his portrayal something magical to me.
    the one you are familiar with and the one you haven't bothered yourself to see, is the distinction between a child's wonder and an adults carefully constructed illusion. One is magical. The other is a parlor trick.
    and last but not least:
    In the first, by contrast, I have trouble veiwing Wilder's wonka as anything but an eccentric adult. A recluse that pulled away from a world he didn't like. A man that wanted the magic that he had lost, but still a man that had lost it. I don't see innocence in Wilder. I don't see wonder. There is magic, yes,but it is not the magic of a child.
    So which is it?
    Take your pick, you've either defined what you think is magic or have not as I put up there.
    You've either synchronized reading with writing or have not, or you're simply pushing buttons.

    You very specifically define the naive innocence of children as magic.
    You very specifically maintain that not knowing defeat is inclusive of this magic.
    You very specifically define one who does know defeat has grown to replace the pixie dust of giants, fairies dragons with the plastic smell of parlour tricks and becomes dishonest, cunning, common.

    Yay or nay?

    Wilder's Wonka, seasoned with experience, has in your little world lost that childish impulse of Nothing Is Impossible and because of this become an old recluse flipping nickels for a quarter and calling all that magic.

    Now Depp's Wonka stood in front of Charlie with his jaw on the floor because he was astounded that this little boy in rags whose barely eaten anything apart from rotting cabbage would turn down such an offer.
    What? That’s impossible. Dropping me for family? That's so weird.
    In his world, anyone that does not think like him is wrong.
    In his world, he is always right.
    In his world, as in any other world, being always right is being always in power.

    THAT, good sir, you take among other things as being a child's mind and one more capable of magic.

    Ergo:
    To you, what we call innocence in children knows no defeat and therefore presumes control of its universe.
    Its this you call magic.
    ….my point stands.

    You say Wilder's wonka's 'lost it' but in his world, anyone that does not think like him is wrong.
    In his word, he is always right.
    In his world, as in any other world, being always right is being always in power.

    Yes, sir, they're both magical but set both out on the world and see who'd fall on his face first, see who'd get his soul destroyed when all he thinks is "I rule, I'm Special" in a world that says "Yeah, right"

    The eccentric recluse with the petty parlor tricks, monsieur, at least learned to amend "I rule, I'm special" with "The world wants to steal this from me. And they think me a sucker. We'll see about that"

    Using this definition, then, both Wonkas are old, manipulative recluses becuase if not then neither would have any concept of the jealousy and spite that drives all spies to steal your chocolate recipes.
    They both did and both closed up.

    However, Depp's makes no sense by being so....infantile.
    That is why when seeing both, you get a feeling that everything made possible in the second movie was only because of the special effects, the colors, the graphics and NOT the mystery of Wonka.

    And that is why despite what the movie shows, you're left thinking that Depp is fraudulent- kinda like finding out the only reason why a single mother with two children ever made it was because of closet full of welfare checks.

    I will say one thing, I, the most powerful being on the universe as far as this thread is concerned, should not have said I'll give you two people outside of a movie and then.......thrown them back in again by describing them.
    However, I have not, and repeat, have NOT, ever claimed bipartisanship.
    Yes, it was extremely biased. So?

    I will also concede that Depp's mind being so childish and therefore still brewing the same childish dreams of wonderlust and innocence, that if made real with the snap of one's finger- and having to pick between both Wonkas- it is Depps mind still fresh with the morning dew of innocence that more closely captures Miracle and Magic.
    Without the special effects, were it possible.

    Speaking of effects- I remember how mystified I was at all the impossibilities in the first one.
    I mean, I can see where we can look back on the first and think "hmm...there really isn't anything much unexplainable, now is there? The falling on his face, cheap.
    The factory, typical of industry.
    The chocolate river? Easily replicated with tons of food coloring and water. Fizzy lifting drinks, cables. But a live, chocolate bird walking out of a live chocolate egg? right before my very eyes? Now that's magic."

    I can see where one would say this:
    Magic, by definition, is supernatural in nature. It is something that exists beyond the normal reality. If it's found in reality, it isn't really magical, now is it?
    Put away the fancy cgi and remember way back when though-
    A room that shrunk as Mike, Veruca, Violet, Charlie, Wonka, all the parents and big ass Gloop walked down its corridor, right before your eyes.
    Those golden hands for coat racks that grabbed on to your coat
    "A surprsse around ever corner but nothign dangerous!”

    A teeny tiny boy beamed across a room into a teenier tinier boy and reaching into a television screen for a real, live chocolate bar.
    The opening of a tiny door into a gigantic room where evryting is edible.
    A shrinking Wonka mobile. An instant Wonak wash *poof*, and all the soap and grime gone just like that.

    All of that was magical. Quit looking at it with eyes bloodshot by the festering vagina of modern graphics, mister, remember what it was like.

    Sylvia Warner, neat little author, wrote a short story about a ring master who began to hate the phoenix he caught and thought would bring him millions for his circus:

    "Even at popular prices the phoenix was not so popular or magical. It was to quiet, too classical,. So people went instead to watch antics of the baboons, to admire the crocodile who had eaten the woman"

    Touche.
    I wasn't about to guess at why you you mind no longer dreams. Tell me, oh mature one, are you pround of being so old? Do you wear the weight of your years with pride and vainity, dying your hair to hide the grays or are you still young enough not to care what others think of you?
    Least I don't have patches.

    Which is more important to you, tying your hair back in ribbons and bows to make yourself pretty for the world or being who you are?
    I'd rather cut my long brain and fashion a big fat noose for big fat masses.
    The key is to make others want to believe, not to tell them they must.
    Good point.

    *sniff sniff*
    Smell that? I just sprayed some pine scented Indifference as to what others do or don’t believe about my little universe.

    We will pull him out of his carefully constructed world and see how he fairs.
    A egomaniac that apparently has a things for midgets and children. Other than that, he dislikes people. He walks around falling down and performing similar tricks anytime he meets people just to get attention.
    He's not known to often give straight answers, but instead will quote obscure references that don't always appear to tie in with the conversation in ways that one would call 'normal'.
    If challenged, he is quick to loose his temper.

    This man that you so admire would most likely be jobless, friendless, and penniless. He seems to be lacking on social skills, and might even suffer from a severe psychosis.
    * moving Tafka's gaping hole and fingers as he types this once again, so that he speaks and types simultaneously*:

    "We will pull him out of his carefully constructed world and see how he fares..
    A childish retard that apparently has a thing for whipping cows and midgets
    and can't get over daddy filling his neurotic head up with repressions.
    Other than that, he dislikes people- so much so he cannot even touch them without gloves. Can’t even deal with them outside of “you’re weird'.
    He walks around smashing his head into glass elevators by mistake and does the funky chicken to incoherent Oompa songs.
    He's not known to often give straight answers, but instead will resort to cutting people off mid-sentence or use a general "you're weird" to fix all his problems, anytime, anywhen at every incongruity and does not always appear to tie in with the conversation.
    Because you do remember how those little chilren shot back at him with an "Ugh..you said that already." and then resumes the conversation with telling them they're short out of nowhere?
    If challenged, he is quick to stop and frown with confusion.
    He’s walking breathing page right out of Freudian psychology.
    Plus he's very feminine yet “masculine” and all tied up beaneath one girly, girly, bob.


    This man that you so admire would most likely be jobless, friendless, and penniless. He seems to be lacking on social skills, and might even suffer from a severe psychosis. "


    Now here, you've lost me. To not know the limits of the world?
    That is kinda the point. Depp's Wonka existed in a world without limits.
    That was the beauty of it.
    Read, hermano.

    To not know the limits of hte world is to be consumed by them.
    Depps having not been consumed yet….. does not make sense.

    At least Pan was who he was not in Germany but Neverland.

    Which brings me to
    You do realise that your entire argument is hopeless.
    You start by saying "let's put the movies aside".
    You then go on to describe him as he was in the movie.
    But now I am supposed to pull im out of the movie again so that he can't do what he can do in the movie.

    It's also where the two characters exist.
    With that in mind let's revise what you've said.
    "he second person has all the charm of Neverland…….. but the psychology of a five year old.
    It can make the impossible possible.
    It can make the unthinkable thinkable.
    It can make the natural unnatural.
    A five year old mind that could produce that which he believes in."
    And not just in his own mind, but anywhere, anytime
    Already covered.

    Keep in mind Depp’s Wonka is not in Neverland. That’s the difference.
    We are 'discussing' (and I use that term loosely) characters. Fictional characters. They exist in fictional worlds. This is quickly running the risk of sounding alot like this.
    Why don't we just leave the character in their own words and not turn this into who could beat up who.
    Its not about who could beat up who, necessarily

    Ill say it again for you-two characters, two factories, and the one that most of us are left wondering "Huh?" at is, drumroll please, your little chia pet:

    Johny Depp

    Does that make you the vulnerable childish social cripple that we should all detest so much?
    Ever pushed a button's elevators for the hell of it?
    There is one that could smash your head right through a concrete wall.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    I must admit. That one thing is rather beautiful.
    It doesn't make up for the rest of the problems with the movie.
    But it is beautiful.
    Took me a while.....HA!

    And true, doesn't make up for the rest of the product though.
    Hands about to fall off...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Where the morning finds me
    Posts
    26
    Ahh... Finally. The fun begins.
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxas
    Now pull your chair up and do you the favor of sauntering through every last one of my posts and show to me in clear black and white any instance of me saying that Tafkam thinks the first movie awful, bad, horrific, as in not good
    Two, thinks the second is better
    Three, thinks Depp's Wonka far superior to the first.

    Lo behold, I never said you did.
    Firstly, a true comparison would be you telling me to find an occurrence of you saying that the first movie was better than the second or that the second movie wasn't as good as the first. Or that Wilder's was superior to Depp's.
    But, you knew that would be easy to find. So you try to make it difficult buy convoluting the matter, and telling me instead to find an occurrence of you telling me what I think on the subject.
    "Lo behold, I never said you did."
    So what exactly is your point here?
    Oh...
    It would see you don't have one.
    Mine was that I was never attempting to place one above the other, as some others might chose to do.
    That both films had merits and flaws.
    Now, If you aren't trying to prove me wrong and tell me that my opinion of the film is wrong, then what exactly are you trying to do?

    So, brilliance, try four now:
    Wow.. the insults begin so soon? That didn't take long did it.
    If you in fact cannot find any of those instances up there, the point of you trying to send me off down some cul-de-sac for any mentions of me saying either three would be what exactly?
    Other than to point out basic human nature, that of smearing their adversaries into a huge pile of generalized mud.
    My point in doing so (again, in case you missed it the first time)
    was that I am not attempting to place one above the other, so why are you continuing to try to prove to me, which is better?
    If I am not weighing them against each other, why try to tip the scales?

    Carpet maintains Tafkam's preference for the second
    Carpet maintains Tafkam likes it all explained to him.
    Carpet maintains Tafkam this and Tafkam that.
    He does seem to have quite the thing for me, doesn't he.
    I wonder what his problem is.
    So Tafkam goes: "Hmm. Here's Gendanken as stuck on Wilder as Carpet is, they're both averse to the second one, and....Gendanken is not being that nice to me, so what does my gigantic mind conclude?
    Why, that Gendanken is saying the same thing!"
    Now here is an instance of you telling me what I am thinking.
    As per the usual, you would be wrong to do so.
    You, my dear, have no future as a mind reader.

    That said, screw Abraxas-
    no comment....

    Gendanken : To you, what we call innocence in children knows no defeat and therefore presumes control of its universe.
    Takfam : Now where did you come up with that idea?
    Gendanken: Its this you call magic.
    Tafkam: Nope again.
    Good to see your taking notes.

    Gee, I wonder:
    How manipulation of others speaks of the innocent magic I was talking about though, I fail to see.
    I speak of the innocent magic of children
    Alrighty, tell me how manipulation of others has anything to do with the magic of innocence.
    All I am saying here is that it doesn't have anything to do with it.
    Put simply:
    manipulation does not equal magic.

    Never loosing what it means to not accept what you cannot change. That, by itself, makes his portrayal something magical to me.
    Yes. The innocent idealism of a child: thinking that anything is possible if only you try hard enough or want it bad enough.
    A quality that I am fairly certain most of us would agree is found in most children.
    That his character embodies that quality makes the depiction magical to me.

    the one you are familiar with and the one you haven't bothered yourself to see, is the distinction between a child's wonder and an adults carefully constructed illusion. One is magical. The other is a parlor trick.
    This is a comparison between to things and nothing but.
    IF we are to assume I am giving some clue about the nature of innocence and magic, I guess we can attempt to derive one.
    hmm...
    The best I have is that it echo's the first point: That manipulation isn't magic.

    and last but not least:
    In the first, by contrast, I have trouble viewing Wilder's Wonka as anything but an eccentric adult. A recluse that pulled away from a world he didn't like. A man that wanted the magic that he had lost, but still a man that had lost it. I don't see innocence in Wilder. I don't see wonder. There is magic, yes, but it is not the magic of a child.
    I won't even pretend to see your point here.
    I've said that I see Wilder's Wonka as having become an adult and thus lost the innocence (and the magic that I associate with such) of childhood.
    He wanted the magic of innocence and attempted to recreate it, but innocence isn't something that can be recaptured.
    He had a magic about him, but not that of a child.
    So my only point in that last example was that Wilder's Wonka was an adult and not a child. A point that most, if not all of you agreed with me on.

    So which is it?
    Take your pick, you've either defined what you think is magic or have not as I put up there.
    You've either synchronized reading with writing or have not, or you're simply pushing buttons.
    Perhaps you should read what i wrote in the context it is written in. Even pulled together, all you have is that manipulation isn't magic.
    But, I'll humor you.
    You show me where I defined anything there.
    And to hit this again:

    Gendanken : To you, what we call innocence in children knows no defeat and therefore presumes control of its universe.
    Takfam : Now where did you come up with that idea?
    I never said innocence couldn't be defeated. In fact I said just the opposite in the last example when I claimed Wilder's Wonka lost it.
    So, where do you get the idea that I claimed innocence "knows no defeat", let alone that it "presumes control of the universe".

    Gendanken: Its this you call magic.
    Tafkam: Nope again.
    If I never said the first part, I sure as hell didn't call what I didn't say magic.

    You very specifically define the naive innocence of children as magic.
    You very specifically maintain that not knowing defeat is inclusive of this magic.
    You very specifically define one who does know defeat has grown to replace the pixie dust of giants, fairies dragons with the plastic smell of parlor tricks and becomes dishonest, cunning, common.
    Yay or nay?
    Well if it's one of the two , I would have to go with nay.
    But, you are kind of close on a few of those, so I will help you out. I’ll try to make this a little clearer for you so you don't have to keep guessing.

    Firstly: I never "very specifically define the naive innocence of children as magic." I would say there is a magic to be found in that innocence. There is a very subtle difference there. Since you are such the fan of subtlety, it's one you should appreciate.

    Secondly, I never maintained any such thing. In fact, I don't recall saying anything about defeat, except perhaps in response to something carpet said. (Granted, I could be wrong. Care to show me where I said something about defeat?)
    If I haven't said anything about defeat, I don't see how I could have done anything to " very specifically maintain that not knowing defeat is inclusive of this magic".

    What I have maintained is that the loss of the innocence of childhood equates to a loss of the magic that is a part of it. (oh hell, I said part. Let me revise that.)
    It equates to a loss of the magic that is to be found in it.

    Your third point is entirely based upon this notion of defeat. A notion that I have nothing to do with. By default, your third point is wrong.
    But, I will reword it a bit for you to make clear what I am saying.
    One who loses the innocence of childhood also loses the magic that accompanies that innocence. They cannot recapture it.

    If they seek to recreate it, or make it real, they would , by necessity, be forced to rely on illusions and parlor tricks. Those things are, by definition, a way of fooling and tricking your audience. In other words, showing them something that is not there or otherwise obscuring the truth.
    Or put more simply, being dishonest.
    form. This does not suppose in any way that they are 'bad', 'evil', or 'vile' in any way, shape or

    Wilder's Wonka, seasoned with experience, has in your little world lost that childish impulse of Nothing Is Impossible and because of this become an old recluse flipping nickels for a quarter and calling all that magic.
    In "my little world"? How cute...
    Regardless of that small slight though, what you are saying here is almost entirely correct. All of it, except for the very negative nature that you paint it in, making it seem as though I see what he does as something simple and everyday.
    Yes, W'sW has lost that naiveté that allows you to never consider the consequences of your actions and never see the obstacles you have to overcome. He knows very well what the real world is like and what it entails. He knows very well what can go wrong or what obstacles he might face. His magic doesn't come from those things not existing to him. His comes from making it all seem so easy and spontaneous.
    Just because we don't know what he is going to do next, doesn't mean that he hasn't planned it all out ahead of time.

    Now Depp's Wonka stood in front of Charlie with his jaw on the floor because he was astounded that this little boy in rags whose barely eaten anything apart from rotting cabbage would turn down such an offer.
    What? That's impossible. Dropping me for family? That's so weird.
    I don't see it so much because Charlie turned him down.
    I see it more as shock that he was wrong.
    Two similar and very interrelated things, but two things that are, nevertheless, very different.

    In his world, anyone that does not think like him is wrong.
    In his world, he is always right.
    In his world, as in any other world, being always right is being always in power.
    Yes and no...
    True, anyone who thinks differently is strange. (Why use a machine to crack nuts? Squirrels would naturally do a much better job..Duh.)
    I would disagree about the second point. If he were always right, that would make him all knowing. He very obviously isn't either. This is evident in that he is working out problems with the gum. In that he doesn't know if the furnace is on or not. In the pink sheep that he would rather not talk about. It's never implied that he thinks he is always right.
    That is just you jumping from "a" to "c" with out even slowing down to look at "b".
    And now that you have managed to get to "c", you are going to try to turn this whole thing into some psychoanalytical power thing?
    Yes, anyone that was always right would always be in power, because they would be all knowing. (we both know where that will lead us)

    THAT, good sir, you take among other things as being a child's mind and one more capable of magic.
    You've gotten ahead of yourself again by supposing you know that I "take" and how I take them.
    You really should stop that...
    Ergo:
    Oh Ho! She is breaking out the fancy talk... this should be good.

    Ergo:
    To you, what we call innocence in children knows no defeat and therefore presumes control of its universe.
    Its this you call magic.
    my point stands.
    Umm..no.
    See everything above.
    (damn. Not as good as I had hoped)
    When you build your argument off of false assumptions, the rest of it isn't going to hold water.

    You say Wilder's Wonka's 'lost it' but in his world, anyone that does not think like him is wrong.
    In his word, he is always right.
    In his world, as in any other world, being always right is being always in power.
    Lost the innocence of childhood, yes. A point already covered.
    All of this has already been covered.
    This is all wrong still. Changing the name isn't going to change that.

    Yes, sir, they're both magical but set both out on the world and see who'd fall on his face first, see who'd get his soul destroyed when all he thinks is "I rule, I'm Special" in a world that says "Yeah, right"
    Once again, you are trying to compare the two to see who is 'better': A point that I was never trying to argue.
    So why bring your opinion to me, and try to shove it down my throat?
    Also, I could come up with an equally silly hypothetical which proves Depp's is 'better'. What is your point madam?
    They are fictional characters.
    They exist in fiction.
    Consider them there and no where else.

    The eccentric recluse with the petty parlor tricks, monsieur, at least learned to amend "I rule, I'm special" with "The world wants to steal this from me. And they think me a sucker. We'll see about that"
    SO D'sW didn't close his factory for that very reason?
    That the world wanted to steal from him and he wasn't going to allow it?

    Using this definition, then, both Wonkas are old, manipulative recluses because if not then neither would have any concept of the jealousy and spite that drives all spies to steal your chocolate recipes.
    They both did and both closed up.
    What definition exactly? The one that just occurred in your head just now? What exactly is it that you are defining?

    However, Depp's makes no sense by being so....infantile.
    That is why when seeing both, you get a feeling that everything made possible in the second movie was only because of the special effects, the colors, the graphics and NOT the mystery of Wonka.
    You realize, of course, that the point you are attempting to make here is not only so thin as to be nonexistent, but it doesn’t serve any argument that you’ve made so far.
    Are you claiming that we are to watch movies, and judge them on the knowing they are movies? That we are not to suspend disbelief, but instead judge the merits and flaws of fictional characters based on whether or not their actions seem as though they could actually happen in the real world?

    When watching the first movie, I could suspend disbelief and enjoy the show. I could ‘believe’ that Wonka was capable of having a chocolate river, Oompa Loompas, fizzy lifting drink, and all the rest. After the show, however, I in no way believed that any of those fantastic confections would soon be available at the supermarket or that he really existed.
    In the same way, I enjoyed the second movie. I let my self believe the ‘magic’ in the context of the story. I don’t believe it could happen in the real world.
    So, yes, all the magic was only possible in the second one through special effects, in just the same way that the chocolate television, the Wonka Wash, the glass elevator and all the rest of thee first one was only possible with the special effects of the time.

    I cannot say that the Wonka Wash was possible because of Wilder’s acting. I can’t claim that Charlie and Grandpa Joe floating was due to the mystery of Wonka.
    Can you?

    And that is why despite what the movie shows, you're left thinking that Depp is fraudulent- kind of like finding out the only reason why a single mother with two children ever made it was because of closet full of welfare checks.
    I just don’t see it that way. Then again, I am not trying to view the movie as realistic (it is fiction after all) nor am I pretending that either of the two Wonkas are real.

    Take D’sW out of the film and you have….
    Johnny Depp.
    Take W’sW out of the film, and you have Wilder.
    Plain and Simple.

    But, even ignoring the fact that both Wilder and Depp had all their lines written for them (the only thing Wilder actually improvised was the cartwheel.) and presuming that we could pull these characters out and put them in this world, what would actually happen would be the same in either case: Failure.
    Their worlds would be destroyed. You would have two candy makers that used rules that don’t exist in our world. Both would wind up thrown in jail or a mental hospital. No Oomph Loops, no glass elevators. No landing on their feet.
    Let’s look at your experiment realistically, since that is what you want to do.

    We are dealing with two individuals that would make fantastic claims and get upset when you questioned them. Two grown men that claim own huge factories run by midgets. Two people both wearing outlandish cloths. To boot, they would most likely have no I.D.’s, no money, no idea what was going on.
    Both would insist that they were Willy Wonka, a character from a famous book, and would seem, in most every way, to be completely bonkers.

    But, magically Wilder’s Wonka would come out just fine….according to you.
    I’ve got but one question:
    How do you figure?

    I will say one thing, I, the most powerful being on the universe as far as this thread is concerned, should not have said I'll give you two people outside of a movie and then.......thrown them back in again by describing them.
    However, I have not, and repeat, have NOT, ever claimed bipartisanship.
    Yes, it was extremely biased. So?
    So it makes no sense to argue the point of which is better with you for two reasons:

    1) I wasn’t doing so in the first place. Something you still seem to have a hard time accepting.
    2) Much like a Christian arguing God and the Bible, you’ve got your mind so made up that you won’t even consider a different way of looking at things.

    If you could ever manage to show me any viable argument for any or your positions, I would consider it.
    (To what end, I couldn’t say since I, again, am not saying one is better than the other.)
    But, as of yet, all you seem intent on doing is making claims with out supporting them and inventing claims and attributing them to me in an attempt to destroy my supposed claim (that you still haven’t been able to show) that Depp’s is better than Wilder’s.

    Here is the point where you would normally come back with something to the effect of “I never claimed Wilder’s was better..”
    So I will ask, why are you so intent on proving it to me then?

    I will also concede that Depp's mind being so childish and therefore still brewing the same childish dreams of wonder lust and innocence, that if made real with the snap of one's finger- and having to pick between both Wonkas- it is Depps mind still fresh with the morning dew of innocence that more closely captures Miracle and Magic.
    Without the special effects, were it possible.
    And this is the closest I’ve yet seen you come to making sense.
    In the setting of the film, those are special effects. It is magic. Magic that only Wonka is capable of. The same applies to the first film.

    My whole contention is that Depp’s Wonka, to me, more closely captures the magic of childhood innocence. That very same wonder lust you speak of.
    Wilder’s Wonka had a very different type of magic to him. It’s a magic that I wouldn’t call magic normally, but here I shall. It was the same kind of magic that, as I’ve said before, James Bond has: The magic of always being able to outwit, out think, and out do. OF always being able to land on his feet and never have one hair out of place. The only real difference is that Wonka is a bit more fantastic. Instead of high-tech gizmos, it is subtle enchantments and bending of the normal rules.

    Speaking of effects- I remember how mystified I was at all the impossibilities in the first one.
    I mean, I can see where we can look back on the first and think "hmm...there really isn't anything much unexplainable, now is there? The falling on his face, cheap.
    The factory, typical of industry.
    The chocolate river? Easily replicated with tons of food coloring and water. Fizzy lifting drinks, cables.
    But, that was never my point. I wish, truthfully, that the conversation had never degenerated to the point of comparing the effects available at the time. I’m sure had the first one been made today, the effects would be better, but that isn’t the point at all. My whole point was the feel of the magic. The films and the characters had two totally different feels. Both men named Wonka, but two very different characters.
    This isn’t what would happen if we were talking about Hamlets or Othellos. Those are characters so well defined that you can only take subtle liberties with them. In this case, we have two Wonkas that aren’t trying to be the same character. Not by a long shot. Attempting to compare the two is like attempting to compare fizzy lifting drink and everlasting gobstoppers.
    Which is objectively better?
    I can’t answer that. Can you?

    Put away the fancy cgi and remember way back when though-
    A room that shrunk as Mike, Veruca, Violet, Charlie, Wonka, all the parents and big ass Gloop walked down its corridor, right before your eyes.
    Those golden hands for coat racks that grabbed on to your coat
    "A surprise around ever corner but nothing dangerous!"
    A teeny tiny boy beamed across a room into a teenier tinier boy and reaching into a television screen for a real, live chocolate bar.
    The opening of a tiny door into a gigantic room where everything is edible.
    A shrinking Wonka mobile. An instant Wonak wash *poof*, and all the soap and grime gone just like that.
    All of that was magical. Quit looking at it with eyes bloodshot by the festering vagina of modern graphics, mister, remember what it was like.
    It’s funny that you would say that to me. It’s exactly what I am asking you to do. You seem to be sitting there saying that because the CGI was there, and it was good, that there can be no magic. That there can be no wonder. But remember that the first movie had a small budget and was filmed way back when. Filmed today, with today’s technology and
    today’s bloated budgets, do you think the same movie would be made? Can you honestly say that they wouldn’t take advantage of what is available?

    I recall someone once saying that people that claim the old days were better are only fooling themselves. That they don’t want to admit that there were problems of a similar (relative) level then. That seems to be exactly what you are doing.
    “The first movie was better ‘cause it lacked all these fancy special effects. What ever happened to the good ol’days of movie making, where there was no CGI?”

    They were working with the best technology available that they could afford. Burton’s movie has a bigger budget and better tech. So?
    Try evaluating the movie on it’s own merits instead of “looking at it with eyes bloodshot by the festering vagina of” special effects of days long past.

    Sylvia Warner, neat little author, wrote a short story about a ring master who began to hate the phoenix he caught and thought would bring him millions for his circus:
    "Even at popular prices the phoenix was not so popular or magical. It was to quiet, too classical,. So people went instead to watch antics of the baboons, to admire the crocodile who had eaten the woman"
    Touché.
    Your point?
    I would much prefer to see a phoenix, even one that sat there sadly preening its feathers, than look at a baboon or a croc. I guess if your attention is ruled by the mundane sensationalism of a woman getting eaten: the type of things that a million Mike Teavees tune in every night to watch, then you would prefer the crocodile or baboons.
    I would take that more as an argument against the mentality of the modern mindset and society than one against magic.

    Least I don't have patches.
    Bald patches, or gray ones?
    Which exactly do you refer to?

    I'd rather cut my long brain and fashion a big fat noose for big fat masses.
    You mean those masses that would rather see an ordinary croc or baboon over a magical phoenix?

    Good point.
    *sniff sniff*
    Smell that? I just sprayed some pine scented Indifference as to what others do or don't believe about my little universe.
    Good for you.

    * moving Tafka's gaping hole and fingers as he types this once again, so that he speaks and types simultaneously*:
    Good to see you haven’t given up on the insults. You wouldn’t have much of a platform without them.

    "We will pull him out of his carefully constructed world and see how he fares..
    A childish retard that apparently has a thing for whipping cows and midgets
    and can't get over daddy filling his neurotic head up with repressions.
    Other than that, he dislikes people- so much so he cannot even touch them without gloves. Can't even deal with them outside of "you're weird'.
    He walks around smashing his head into glass elevators by mistake and does the funky chicken to incoherent Oompa songs.
    He's not known to often give straight answers, but instead will resort to cutting people off mid-sentence or use a general "you're weird" to fix all his problems, anytime, anywhen at every incongruity and does not always appear to tie in with the conversation.
    Because you do remember how those little children shot back at him with an "Ugh..you said that already." and then resumes the conversation with telling them they're short out of nowhere.
    If challenged, he is quick to stop and frown with confusion.
    He's walking breathing page right out of Freud's famous thesis.
    Plus he's very feminine yet "masculine" all tied up beneath one girly, girly, bob.
    You do like to go around in circles don’t you….
    Let’s recap for those new to all of this what just happened.
    You made your case about how “unrealistic” Depp’s portrayal of a fictional character is, mainly by showing how he would fare in the real world.
    You however fail to do the same for Wilder’s portrayal. Due to this lack of identical treatment, you claim Wilder’s is better.
    When Wilder’s portrayal is subjected to a similar treatment….
    You counter with starting the whole cycle all over again.
    BRILLIANT!!
    If it doesn’t work the first time, repeat it!
    That must make it work!!
    Right?

    This man that you so admire would most likely be jobless, friendless, and penniless. He seems to be lacking on social skills, and might even suffer from a severe psychosis. "
    I never said I admired him. I never suggested such a thing. Shouldn’t try to use my words against me. Especially not when you are just repeating yourself.

    Read, hermano.
    To not know the limits of the world is to be consumed by them.
    Depps having not been consumed yet�.. does not make sense.
    ??
    And what would these “limits of the world” consist of?
    Again, repetition doesn’t answer questions. You can’t just rephrase your original statement and pretend you’ve said something new.
    Besides, we are talking about fictional characters in fictional worlds. It also doesn’t make sense for Wilder’s factory not to have been shut down for fire hazards, health code violations, human rights violations, etc, etc, etc…
    If you apply real world treatment to one, you’d best do it to both.

    At least Pan was who he was not in Germany but Nederland.
    Memory failing you? Peter Pan came out of Nederland and got the children to return there with him. He was Peter Pan in the real world as far as the story is concerned. If you yank him out of the story, he doesn’t fare too well either.

    Which brings me to
    you do realize that your entire argument is hopeless.
    You start by saying "let's put the movies aside".
    You then go on to describe him as he was in the movie.

    A five year old mind that could produce that which he believes in."
    And not just in his own mind, but anywhere, anytime
    already covered.
    Hah…
    Right….
    Doubly funny when you follow it with this:
    Keep in mind Depp's Wonka is not in Neverland. That's the difference.
    And he isn’t in the “real world” either. Neither is Wilder’s. So what exactly is your point in this whole line of “attack”.
    They are all fictional characters existing in fictional worlds.

    Its not about who could beat up who, necessarily
    Ill say it again for you-two characters, two factories, and the one that most of us are left wondering "Huh?" at is, drumroll please, your little chia pet:
    Johny Depp
    “left wondering "Huh?" at”
    You know, I can’t even answer this. Perhaps if you were a bit more vague…..

    Someone who ISN'T.
    Some one who isn’t jaded is going to view the world as shit?
    Well that certainly explains all the cynical and depressed children running around, now doesn’t it.

    Given the immortals of Gulliver's travels, did they ever know anguish? Despair?
    They were fully aware of what they had lost, yes.
    If the result was such a happy one, why did Gulliver (who actually bothered to think through the whole thing and not jump ‘blindly’ (ha) at it) turn it down?

    So just as someone whose never known death can never know anguish or despair, so someone who's never known anguish or despair or heartache or disillusionment introduced to him by a world gone to shit can never conceptualize the very thought of magic or beauty or hope.
    I would almost agree with this sentiment. I would say that by knowing the ‘shitiness’ of the world, one comes to better appreciate that that isn’t ‘shitty’.
    I wouldn’t have gone so far as to say that death is the only source of anguish or despair though. That is just silly.

    And THAT is what keeps one from dying, from fading and being robbed of this magic.
    I never knew about beauty and hope until I hit bottom.
    But then again, that's just me.
    Your childhood must have been a very horrible time for you then: Never knowing beauty or hope.

    Ever pushed a button's elevators for the hell of it?
    There is one that could smash your head right through a concrete wall.
    Pity there isn’t one that would open your mind.




    *note* A. went back and did some editing that didn't drastically alter the idea of her post, but only rearanged certain parts of it. My reply was absed off the original, which as far as I can tell only differs in that part about Gullivar's immortals and the shittiness of the world was moved to the top from the end of the post and one more line was added to the end. I have addend the end line, but have not gane back to move the portions that A. moved. They remain in their original position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •