NICE. Ive been waiting for this video for weeks!

nice work!

Willy Wonka sure is one sick man.

did you even read the original novel? it's a KIDS NOVEL. the whole concept of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a KIDS STORY. the novel's main character was CHARLIE. he's in the friggin title! they even made sequels to the novel that tell about CHARLIE'S adventures through the factory!

You're prolly a die hard Tim Burton fan and you don't like it when people smash down on your hero.

Tim Burton is a good director. I like him a lot, except when it comes to remaking shit or musicals, since he has an apparent hate for them. he's brilliant, but you do have to realize that he's not perfect. this wasn't one of his best works, and I'm going to stick with the 70's version any day.

You know, it's funny you'd suggest veggen is "a die hard Tim Burton fan" who doesn't "like it when people smash down on [his] hero", because it seems to me like you're simply repeating things Doug said in the review. Speaking of die-hard fans...

Did you? Charlie in the novel is frankly underdeveloped and the focus is on the weird things going on around him. The visuals are everything. People need to stop thinking of this as a remake, as it really doesn't pull anything from the old movie. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is actually far more faithful (all the songs save the robot one are pulled from the book) so if changes are bugging you take it up with Rahld Dahl

The ironic thing is, Roald Dahl, himself, wrote the screenplay to Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. He made the changes to his own story. Someone else did the screenplay to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Was it more faithful to the book-yes, but the actual author of the book had a different vision for a movie adaptation of his story. Ultimately, I was more entertained by the first movie. Willie Wonka FTW

You have to realize what the heart of the story is. The moral. Its a story that's trying to teach you a lesson about what happens to "bad people" who give into the temptations of pride and greed. Or at least, the first one is. It's somewhat downplayed in the later version.

I also agree that Willy Wonka should be the merlin of the story and not... that weird nutcase who we're supposed to feel bad for.

You do have to admit that though that Wonka was filmed by Disney while Charlie was produced by Disney. I would say that this alone had a significant impact on how the story was told.

Except the films were done by Warner BrosNOT Disney

i loved the daffy duck/bugs bunny reference at the end

aww... look the dork actually has to be nice since he got booted off for being such a bitch. did your mommy have to ask the NC for permission to get you back on the site?

watch 2-3 reviews after this one after he kisses doug's ass a little he'll criticize him again

Was I the only one who expected to see an AVGN kameo at the very end? Loved the vid, tho I actualy liked both about the same myself.

no i thought it was him too!! great vid!

I did, too. I was like, "NEEERRRRRRRRRR-- oops."

As was I. In all honesty, I had already forgotten about that "fan".

Nope, I also expected a AVGN cameo too

:avgn is here?
:no!

We know who it is, but as soon as the Critic started quoting that famous Daffy Duck cartoon, I think everyone was expecting the AVGN at the end.

I was expecting James, myself.

I was waiting for Nerd to show up too...

Well, I was expecting Chester A. Bum. You know, from that opening in Linkara's: Countdown Part 2?

No I was ready for that too. I really wonder who that annoying fan is supposed to be.

Haven't you seen his Top 11 Fuck-Ups? That's Douchey McNitpick.

Sorry Critic, but you're missing a lot. I tried watching the old Willy Wonka but... it's just so childish... It's your nostalgia that's making it look good in your eyes. And Johhny is actually quite good in this role... you're just looking for *your* Willy Wonka in him, and he isn't there.

Now try looking at it as a child. These movies weren't really intended for adults, so wouldn't you expect it to be childish? Johnny Depp in this role reminds me more of Michael Jackson which is not exactly the image that I would want to associate to Wonka. By the way, I grew up with the first version, and probably will always prefer it, I just can't get into the newer one. It just seems like a creepy, odd, dark and depressing Tim Burton movie and not like a childrens' movie at all.

i totally agree with this review..
though i also like the new wonka, it's the johnny depp style and it would rather fit into another movie than into the chocolade-factory

you got the 60's and 70's mixed up

I always like the Old vs New segments. I loved this one

Although, to be fair I have very vague memories of the Wonka version and hardly watched the Charlie version... also, Johnny Depp and Tim Burton have never really wowed me with any movie. Some of them are okay and a few I haven't seen, but... I don't know. I guess Tim Burton movies aren't really my thing

Oh, except Ed Wood. That movie kicked ass

And I loved the ending in this one

Wrong, sir! Wrong! Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if - and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy - "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera... "Fax mentis, incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera... Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there! Black and white, clear as crystal! You are FIFTH! You have no sense of number order and you ruined a good comment, so you get... NOTHING!!! You lose! GOOD DAY, SIR!

Man ...this dialogue is just the most perfect and insane thing i have ever seen! Thanks so much for taking the time to do this! I just read it and remember gene's acting. he's such a pro!

man, do you use lsd? really ...that's the top comment ever!!!!!

Depp is great but nobody beats Gene Wilder.

meh i dont like johnny depp in the new one he just looks....weird

nice one

I think Tim Burton should stay away from remakes and adaptations that don't fit his filmmaking style...

... I mean, Batman and its sequel prove the rule, because Batman's setting and storyline were something that was right up Burton's stylelistic alley.

Planet of the Apes sucked, and I just don't appreciate this Wonka film as much as the original... it's not a bad film in any way, but you're right again N.C.: Willy Wonka should have been a supporting character, instead of a platform for more of Johnny Depp's esoteric antics.

But my biggest piece of evidence for my Tim Burton rule was revealed more recently, in pics of his ill-fated Superman film:

http://io9.com/5364772/the-nic-cagetim-burton-superman-that-never-was

Doesn't that just look silly? Thank goodness that never got off the ground.

Brandon Routh may have looked like a kid in a costume, but that test shot looks like Nic Cage in a costume. Not Superman. Just actor Nic Cage playing a generic superhero.

Another excellent review, N.C,

That linked picture is obviously faked.

Hahahahaha! I KNOW. It's some of the worst photoshop I have ever seen. Nick Cage's face is blurry and faded out while the suit is crisp and in focus (and the colors are completely saturated).

Also, what was up with that mannequin-esque line through the neck?

Soooo: Fail.

Because that probably was a mannequin.

I'm not going to debate the quality of a rushed test photo. But rest assured, the story of Tim Burton doing a Superman film is real. There is also concept art that accompanies that photo, that prove the idea was being kicked around. Also its one-time writer Kevin Smith, talked about the film at a college lecture:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYhLIThTvk&feature=player_embedded[/url]

So read into it a little more before issuing a thumbs down.

Seeing both the old and new versions, I like both actually. I like the kids better in the new one but Gene is the best Willy, no contest.

nice video. you made a lot of points. its a close call me but i actually think the new one is slightly better as a whole. hard choice i must admit.

I hope Tim Burton Does better on Alice in Wonderland then this. Great Review

Nice review as always NC:-)

The Willy Wonka I agree since I watched it once but I never saw the Charlie one. I never got interested. I already know that the Willy Wonka one won by default because you liked it, grew up with it, and because it already won three rounds out of five.

Oh, and that Douchebaggy guy could have done more than change the music. He could have changed the movies or change the background to something random.

I do love both but...I do prefer the new one, I don't know but the old willy wonka was awesome...but the rest I just didn't like....and yes in the new version charlie could die I don't care

Die for or sin little charlie

Now that is how you make a tribute to great comedy. The "Duck Amuck" ending with Douchey McNitpick was perfect.

Been looking forward to this one. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was one of my favorite books growing up and the first movie was a delight to see. It's a classic, but the remake still stands out on its own as a fitting remake.

Wonka - I also have to go with the old one. Depp's Wonka just seemed a little too creepy for my liking as opposed to the Wilder version who still remains a timeless film character still remembered and spoofed today. Depp's version wasn't memorable at all.

Charlie - The old one. Let's be honest, what kind of kid acts like the one in the remake? Most kids are selfish and the Charlie in the movie was like a fucking saint. The other Charlie was a more believable character kids could relate to.

Supporting Characters - I have to disagree with Doug and go with the remake. They did a fantastic job at updating the kids and the parents, though it would have been even better if they included the overly protective PC parent. These kids and parents represented some of the worst qualities found in kids and parents today. Selfish, spoiled brats, ultra-competitive parents and kids, and the inattentive parents who let their kids be a slave to television and video games. The remake handled this much better.

Songs - I'm gonna have to call this one a draw. The old ones were catchy and still memorable to this day, but the new ones were very creative and catchy in their own right.

Visual Style - New. Come on, you can't beat Tim Burton. The old one hasn't aged well in terms of visuals.

Overall both are enjoyable films each with their very own distinctive style. I like both versions, but I'm going with the old.

You should have given the new one more points Doug... really. And you shouldn't have included Charlie amoungst the "supporting cast". I mean, if not for him, the new movie would have deffinately won that round. The parents and kids were deffinately updated to par.

Also, have you read the book? As in, the book in which these movies are based off of? If you did, you would realize that the newer version is actually a lot more like it then the old version, including the ending which was totally left out in the old version.

In my opinion, the story is better in the newer version because it covers a lot more. Remember a lot of the "lesson" of the movie also went out to the parents and what spoiling their kids did to them.

I mean, the old version beats the new one anyway, but I'm just saying you should have given the new version a little more credit

As with the Johnny Depp thing. "What the hell is he doing there" you ask? Well, Tim Burton kind of has this thing where he basically makes Depp the star of almost all of his newer movies or at least in them... idk. THe name "Tim Burton" is almost gauranteed to appear with the name "Johnny Depp" now-a-days.

lol I loved the ending, especially the Doug music XD.

I agree with you on almost everything. Wonka is DEFINITELY the superior. The only think I disagree with is the gobstoppers. I absolutely love the look of the original gobstopper, the new one is too... bland looking. The original was maybe a little well, unique, but it still captured the imagination. My overall point is the original gobstoppers are superior.

People might disagree, but it's just my opinion.

fine review, critic of nostalgia

Great video. But regretfully, I disagree on every point but 2. The Tim Burton movie is certainly more superior. Willy Wonka wasn't bad, it certainly was the best Willy Wonka movie for a while, but only because it was the only one. I thought Depp's performance was fantastic. He made it original, and he played it much darker. I do realize it wasn't consistent, but I think that was what he was going for. And he had me laughing the whole way.

I would give the music point to the original though, that I agree with. I do like the music in the Burton movie, but NC is right, the original music is classic.

And by the way, the ending of this review is classic! Flawless, even! Majestic! I don't think I could ever come up with enough adjectives to describe it. I may not always agree with your opinions, but I always enjoy your videos.

Awesome Job NC!

I'm extremely glad you picked the original. Burton's isn't bad, but it can't compare to the original.

Also:
I hate to be a Douchy McNickpick, but i think u meant '60's hippie song and '70s disco. Sorry, hate to be a douche.

But again, I love your videos and your videos always make my day.

I remember seeing the Willy Wonka version at the age of about ten, after having read the book about fifty times. I spent the entire time going "What the fuck are they doing?" especially with the Oompa-Loompas. Apparently a race of singing mini-Tarzans isn't quirky enough: we're going to make them orange, give them green Elvis quiffs and Frankenstein bolts on their hips. And their SONG. Ye gods, I hated the music in that movie, but the Oompa-Loompas' song pissed me off no end. I was looking forward to getting some tunes to the songs in the books, and instead I got this awful, slow, monotonous dirge that sounded like a metronome with lyrics. And it was the same for each kid! Come on, they couldn't write three extra tunes?
The Charlie verson made me go "Meh", which is an improvement, I guess.

You have made very good points. I own both and the story is where I always had trouble differentiating which was better. Thanks for clearing it up a little for me!

Wow, great review Doug!

By the way, right on with regard to the two Charlies. I'm glad to know that I was not the only one who found the one from the Burton version to be so annoying.

As for Depp, no doubt a fantastic actor... in anything else. But Gene Wilder is Wonka.

Man, where did all the videos come from?

To be honest, Willie wonka is more fun, and less creepy then Charlie.

Atleast that's how I see it

Awesome review I was wondering when this one would come up

I really did love the newer version. I'm sorta iffy on which I like more. I usually say I like the newer version because I felt it kept closer to the book and had interesting development with wonka. But I have to admit-when all is set and done,Wilder is 500 times better than Depp as far as performance is concerned. And it does have a timeless and more magical feel to it that the new lacks entirely. And you did point out exactly what makes Wilder's part essentially the better character. But I still genuinley loved how they included the side stories and keeping the certain elements in the newer on. That,when I saw it,I just loved. Loved them both.
Great review. It seemed a no brainer in this one. I knew from the get-go that it would definitely go to the Original.
great with the small world joke.Its a Small world will slowly eat your brain with it's catchiness :s

agreed with the whole lot. amazing once again XD

Doug, I love your Old vs New videos, but this is the only one I have to disagree with you on. First off, Roald Dahl, the author of the book, hated the Gene Wilder version because people changed his screenplay and made it a light musical. The new one does a better job adapting the book into the film. Even Dahl's widow says that if Roald were still alive, he'd love Tim Burton's version. Plus, the Oompa Loompa songs in the Burton version were taken directly from the book, unlike Wilder's version. Now don't get me wrong, I like Wilder's version because I grew up with it and it's a charming kid's film, but I like Burton's adaptation better because I respect movies that are closer to the source material. That's all I wanted to say, I hope to see your next review soon. Maybe you can do King Kong 1933 vs King Kong 2005.

Roald Dahl did hate the old version, that's why they never made Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. He objected to the adaptation and also the casting - he wanted Spike Milligan in the role of Wonka (which by the way I would LOVE to have seen). Still, the Wilder version is still fun and heartwarming.

I liked that Burton stuck to the novel (besides the Wonka family backstory, which was a nice touch). True, staying faithful to the book doesn't automatically make a good movie but it's such a good story that it works here. Plus the kid characters are a lot more balanced - in the first version Veruca Salt is the only truly obnoxious one but in the second you feel like all of them deserved what they got! Depp's perfomance made me laugh but probably for all the wrong reasons, he just wasn't how I imagined Willy Wonka to be.

I'm a fan of Roald Dalh, but this video really piss me off because it looks like Nostalgia Critic didn't read a book. many people like the Burton one because it's close to the book.
But Critic didn't get the point. And he explain the book/movie's meaning in wrong way.