Badmovies.org Forum

I had a vision. I want to draw a really big mural of a big battlefield that has oompa loompas from both movies fighting eachother B.C. style. Wilder commanding one army, Depp commanding the other. It'll be awxsome when its done. But, seriously, who did an overall better job? Or which movie was overall better?

While I enjoyed Depp's Wonka, Wilder does a better job of making Wonka a human being. An odd human being, but a human being nonetheless. Depp's "Michael Jackson on (yet more) acid" Wonka is interesting but just not as believable as a character. Wilder's portrayal, as a bonus, seems closer to the Wonka of the book as well.

That said, I did particularly like the fact that Depp's Wonka is afraid of/repulsed by children; it made for some good comedic moments.

Our resident Zombiedudeman (http://www.myspace.com/cdcguy) is good at drawing messed up stuff like your Wonka battle.

I liked both movies, but I liked Gene Wilder's better, probably because it was the first one.  :smile:

Depp's was good.  There were a couple of things that did bother me though.  One was Depp's Wonka towards the beginning saying that the children weren't going to be harmed (maybe just scared).  In the original, there were no guarantees, the one girl might have stayed a blueberry.  Another was the Oompah - Loompahs; I much preferred having different people filling out the roster rather than CGIing one guy.  That's kinda cheating in my book.

Sets were great in both (though I can see a theme park being built around Depp's Wonkaland), and Depp's Wonka had a bit more depth of character.

Upshot, it is Wilder's version by an everlasting gobstopper.

The main difference between the two is wilder's Wonka always seemed to know more what was going on than everyone else. He seemed to know more about the world than everyone else. He was always in command of the situation.

Depps Wonka seemed oblivious to the real world. He seemed naive to the real world. He didn't have the same command of the situation that Wilder's Wonka had.

I prefer Wilder's Wonka.

For the record, Deep Roy's Oompah-Loompahs were only marginally CGI. For each OL that appears on screen, Deep Roy did a separate performance. 50 OLs on screen? 50 performances by Deep Roy. The CGI was only used to assemble them all into one scene. I personally was rather impressed by that. Most film makers would have taken the easier, one-take-reproduced-50-times route. According to IMDB, that garnered him a cool million dollars.

Depp FTW!!

Seriously Depp is a far better actor that Wilder and he really brought to life a character that been in a self-imposed exile for many years. someone like that is going to seem a little naive and out of touch.

I think that Gene Wilder gives a better performance as Willy Wonka, he just seems more life-like than Johnny Depp, who seems to be kind of wooden as Willy Wonka, probably just a personal preference, I think Gene Wilder would be awful as Jack Sparrow.
Both Wonka movies are good, I just think the original is the better of the two.
(http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q122/DENNISDURWARDHAMMOND/willy_wonka.jpg)

Thanks for the clarification, Derf.  I had heard it was just one performance that was repeated.  I still like having multiple, different O-Ls.

Can you guess who I picked? 

I have never loved the first film, though I like it and do love the score.  I think the first film is quite stagy, but I do think Gene Wilder was wonderful and more likeable as Wonka, and feel all the actors hit  just the right note for a child-film fantasy. 

The second film is far more disturbing, and Johnny Depp downright creepy as Wonka.  I thought the first sequence in the factory with the animatronic figures catching fire was brilliant, but apparently not appealing to youngsters (I could see nightmares fueled by that bit).  I did like Depp's subtly sinister Wonka.

Ditto.