I don't like the comparison. To me its similar to comparing Heath Ledger to Jack Nicholson when talking about The Joker. They each went different directions, based on the movie they were in. Wilder's Wonka wouldn't have fit in Depp's place, and vice versa. Personally I prefer Wilder's, but I thought the whole movie was better as a whole.
When I die, I want people to look at me and say "Yeah, he might have been crazy, but that was one zarkin frood that knew where his towel was."
I have not seen the new one. But I love it when people "review" books or movies they haven't seen, so...
Wilder was extraordinary in the original, so anyone reinterpreting that role is going to have a tough time winning over old fans. But Depp is a captivating actor. And considering this is a Tim Burton film (which I'll guess substitutes dark and alienating for the original's bright charm), I think I can see the rationale. But making that work for a younger audience would be tough. So I don't know. But now I'm curious to see the new one.
"We're kind of on the level of crossword puzzle writers... And no one ever goes to them and gives them an award." ~Joe Strummer sscce.org
Roald Dahl hated the '71 movie. 2005's version was supposed to be closer to the book with some slight modifications to modernize it. I prefer the '71 version because I saw it first. That tends to be what happens with me. I rarely enjoy remakes / re-imaginings. I get too attached to the originals. That said, the 2005 wasn't horrible. I enjoy Wilder and Depp for completely different reasons from one another. I think they both interpreted their role as Wonka as best as it could have been done, respectively.
Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:Depp's version of the character was obviously influenced by the (wretched) backstory they invented for that film. One wonders if ol' Johnny had a hand in inventing it, though.
According to wikipedia, no. That was John August (screenwriter for Big Fish) and Burton's collaboration.
Ernest Friedman-Hill wrote:
Y'all ever see the band Veruca Salt?
Heck yea! Used to love that song. They were one hit wonders though.
Gregg Bolinger wrote:... Used to love that song. They were one hit wonders though.
The early band had five top-40 hits from their first two albums.
They charted on Billboard's "Modern Rock" (now called "Alternative") with:
"Number One Blind" (#20)
"Volcano Girls" (#8)
And on Billboard's "Mainstream Rock" with:
"Volcano Girls" (#9)
("Seether" also placed #6 in Austraila's Triple J of 1994. "Benjamin" was a minor hit in the UK.)
Personally, I think the material on their first album and the follow-up EP was much stronger. By the time "Volcano Girls" (a Nina Gordon song) was released, the band was fragmenting. After Gordon left, I lost interest.
Edit: To be fair, Nina Gordon's solo effort was surprisingly uninteresting. I think they need each other for it to work.