Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkonofalski | Hacker News Reader

I never understood this. The Tim Burton version of the film isn't a remake of this one. It's a direct adaptation of the book and is vastly more faithful to the source material than the GW version of the movie. Why people continue to compare them as if they're the same thing is weird to me. I enjoyed both almost equally but for entirely different reasons. Why others can't is beyond me...

View on HN

How is it more faithful to the book?

I also really like both of the films but I don't see how either is more or less faithful to the book.

It shares the same name, and some scenes are more faithful - like the squirrel room, which became a room full of geese in the original film.

But in the Burton film, ultimately, it's a story about Wonka reconnecting with his estranged father, explaining all of his weirdness and childlike behaviour as being somehow related to this event. Charlie is a second runner in that respect from the moment Wonka enters the screen.

My other issue is that Depp is insufferable, irritating and took the "child-like" description to an extreme. I dislike the Burton version more than I dislike the Hitchhikers film... which is to say, a lot. Both took a well trodden and loved story and changed it in a way that seems to add nothing to the narrative. The Hitchhikers film[1] fell back on the "but Douglas Adams never told the story the same twice in any medium" as an excuse. I don't believe Burton had that one to fall back on. Especially as Dahl felt Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory didn't capture his vision for the movie[2].

[1] http://www.therobotsvoice.com/2011/05/the_15_worst_things_ab... [2] https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/why-roald-dahl-hated-willy-wonka...

Regarding your footnote [1], it wasn't entirely an excuse. Most of the new things people hated in the movie were from Douglas Adams himself (he did almost all of the film's many, many drafts), because he never could tell the story the same way twice. You can almost tell there was a telephone effect in Douglas Adams writing, revising, rewriting his own drafts so many times for the whims of Hollywood executives. The interesting bit of final irony being that when Douglas Adams passed Hollywood passed it off to British directors that didn't meddle much further with the final draft beyond what happens naturally when you cast it and storyboard it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com