Page 1 of 1

Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:31 pm
by Chuck Jackson
Screw all this Verdi/Cimbasso, End of the World, Piston/Rotor crap. Here is the pressing question of the month:

Gene Wilder/Willy Wonka vs Johnny Depp/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

Discuss, and remember you get extra points with a total digression of this topic into the strengths/weaknesses of the two opposing Oompah Loompahs.

You will be a total nudnik if the tuba comes up once.

Let the games begin!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:40 pm
by Uncle Buck
I'm probably in the minority, but the Johnny Depp/Deep Roy version fit my sense of humor a little better. It was more edgy, which I also think is more consistent with the book. I liked that the songs used the actual lyrics from the book.

I like the Gene Wilder version, but I love just about every moment of the Johnny Depp version. I was going to start listing all my favorite moments, but realized it would be too long of a list.

One general example: In the Wilder film, the Oompah Loompahs were pretty funny in the dance scenes when they look like they're humping each other. But in the Depp version, it leaves you really wondering a few times if the kids are going to ever come out alive.

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:19 pm
by oldbandnerd
I like both of them for the very reasons that make them so differnt. The original one was just fun and wacky with just a hint of insanity and horror. The second one was "somebody smoked some really good **** " before they wrote this script. Tottaly insane with really dark humor.
If I had to pick one over the other I would choose the original for sentimental reasons. I saw it in the theaters when I was 8 and can still remember it. Tickets were $1.50 and I remember my parents gripping about the cost to take 3 kids to the movies.Probaly spent at least $6.00 all together with popcorn and drinks. That's a lot for a dad on a Tech. Sgt.'s salary back then.

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:02 pm
by Mark
I thought we weren't supposed to discuss politics.

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:06 pm
by Chuck Jackson
Mark wrote:I thought we weren't supposed to discuss politics.
I'm invoking that Executive thingee that everyone since Reagan has abused..........................So There!!!!

Chuck "TUBA"Jackson

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:02 am
by alfredr
I just feel like this thread needs a line from "The Princess Bride."

You see how easy it is to digress? Gene Wilder -> "Young Frankenstein' -> Mel Brooks -> Rob Reiner -> "The Princess Bride"

alfredr (my father is alive and well, thank you)

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:25 am
by alfredr
And of course, for the tuba digressionists among us: Gene Wilder -> Alec Wilder -> Less than six months till TubaChristmas

"I am your father, Buzz."

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:15 am
by bort
Original, no question.

Why does Hollywood constantly need to keep remaking movies?

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:53 pm
by we3kings
The majority of Hollywood can't come up with a good new idea for a movie.

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:17 pm
by Tubajug
alfredr wrote:I just feel like this thread needs a line from "The Princess Bride."
"Stop this rhyming and I mean it!"

"Anybody want a peanut?"

Re: Let's Get Down to Business

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:20 pm
by gwwilk
DP wrote:
bort wrote:Original, no question.

Why does Hollywood constantly need to keep remaking movies?
Because sheeple when busy with diversions remain sheeple?

Perish the thought that decades of trained consumerism would be lost through neglect!
I believe you're omitting much of advertising's 'venerable' history, Dale.
With ads: http://mashable.com/2011/12/26/history-advertising/
Without ads: http://5.mshcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... tising.jpg