[ SECRET POST #3912 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3912 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 24 secrets from Secret Submission Post #560.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

08. https://i.imgur.com/5Welhen.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

I...really can't agree. I don't think either movie got it right, but Depp's Willy Wonka was doubly bad IMO because it was weird and creepy and because it was just another kooky dude in makeup with a funny voice role for Depp.

[(Anonymous)]

So...most of Tim Burton's filmography?

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but at least with Gene Wilder, I didn't think his Willy Wonka was about to diddle some kids.

[(Anonymous)]

agreed.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah. I don't know why, but Depp's version of Willy Wonka came off a touch pedophile-ish for some reason.

[greghousesgf]

THIS!

[soldatsasha]

Yeah, Depp came across as really creepy to me in a really disturbing sort of way. Like a molester or a cannibal or something.

Wilder was really creepy too, but in a much more charming 'mad inventor' way that I didn't find so off-putting. Scary but in a lovable sort of way?

[(Anonymous)]

Gene Wilder is one of the few actor's I have an immediate and knee jerk purely physical attraction to. Is that weird?

[arcadiaego]

How do you feel about thewakokid? ;)

[soldatsasha]

He was kind of cute, so no?

ETA: I mean, like, pretty fucking cute.

[(Anonymous)]

No, not weird at all! Or maybe we're weird together, IDK. It was lust at first sight for me, too. Gene Wilder and Buster Keaton were my two earliest crushes, and I still compliment my younger self on her good taste. However, it ruined me for the more conventionally attractive Hollywood types like Chris Evans and Jensen Ackles. Boredom central.

I've seen the Wilder movie, oh, maybe 15 times. I've seen the Depp/Burton once, and I'd appreciate getting those two hours of my life back. Talk about one of the most unmagical kids' films I'd seen in a while.

[(Anonymous)]

Depp's Wonka is hella creepy.

I like both versions of the film, but prefer the original. And I definitely prefer Wilder's Wonka.

[arcadiaego]

I feel like for the story to work you have to believe that Wonka knows exactly what he's doing and the "madness" is an act. (Otherwise he's just torturing children.) I did not get that impression from Depp's performance.

[(Anonymous)]

This exactly. Wilder nails that dynamic. Depp...doesn't. At all.

[(Anonymous)]

I preferred the Depp version. It started out kind of boring but then once it picked up, it was great. The Wilder version didn't appeal to me at all.

[(Anonymous)]

I have to disagree. Gene Wilder's Wonka was the best Wonka.

[(Anonymous)]

Really? What did you like about it?

[(Anonymous)]

Mm, I think they both had things they got both right and wrong... Wilder's Wonka felt more genuinely playful, as he is in the book, but Depp's nailed the sinister undertone to a lot of his actions/reactions much better. I honestly think they went too far in either direction for the book character-- Wilder's was too nice, and Depp's was too crazy.

That said, holy shit, Deep Roy >>>>>>>>>>>> any other Oompa Loompa ever.

How does it feel...

[(Anonymous)]

...to be so wrong? Granted, I haven't read the book, but the original film had a wonderful balance of terror and wonder. This just had me wondering when WW was going to have the Oompa-loompas hold a kid down so he could have is way with them.

[thecrazyalaskan]

I liked the newer one because it was more faithful to the book (read in the fifth grade and adored). I still love the Gene Wilder one, for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. Though considering that Johnny Depp has like... one thing he can do and is a boil on the asscrack of humanity, maybe I need to rethink my assessment.

[(Anonymous)]

I was mostly just confused at the decision to make Mike Teavee a mathematical genius and then keep the song about how TV rots your brains.

[alexi_lupin]

I think the Depp film includes more of the actual plot from the books and is a more accurate adaptation plotwise. But I think the Wilder film is the far better film overall.

[(Anonymous)]

My immediate visceral response to this: SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!

[mimi_sardinia]

Yeah, given that I read the book first, before I ever saw the Dene Wilder movie, that version always irked me a bit for all the changes from the book, and also because the Oompa Loompas always sang the same damn song.

The newer movie was darker, had the Burton quirkiness, and yes Depp's Wonka came off quite a bit more of a creepy weirdo, and then there was also the Added Daddy Issues - but it stuck far closer to the book in plot. Also the Oompa Loompas sang different songs and I appreciated how they varied in genre too.