PT
Back to the Future..... 'nuff said
You could say the same about most films on ITV, they tend to come round again every few weeks.
Back to the Future..... 'nuff said
IS
He wrote it originally but then after he didn't make some deadlines it was totally re-written by someone else. Dahl disowned the film. for similar reasons why I was never keen on it.
According to Wikipedia Dahl's first choice was for Spike Milligan as Willy Wonka and Jon Pertwee was also in the running. Both would have been interesting, definately less menacing than Gene Wilder.
That's because it was originally to promote Quaker's Willy Wonka branded chocolate bars - hence they changed the name to 'Willy Wonka and The Chocolate factory'.
He did the screenplay though, didn't he?
He wrote it originally but then after he didn't make some deadlines it was totally re-written by someone else. Dahl disowned the film. for similar reasons why I was never keen on it.
According to Wikipedia Dahl's first choice was for Spike Milligan as Willy Wonka and Jon Pertwee was also in the running. Both would have been interesting, definately less menacing than Gene Wilder.
Quote:
I love the fact that the film is copyrighted to Quaker Oats 
That's because it was originally to promote Quaker's Willy Wonka branded chocolate bars - hence they changed the name to 'Willy Wonka and The Chocolate factory'.
IS
It's not though of course, both were different interpretations of the same book. Nothing originally from the 1970's film appears in the 2005 one.
I've not read CATCF since school but when I saw the 2005 version it did all come flooding back to me as it is very loyal to what Dahl wrote, the songs are in the book for example
Having never read the book, or if I did it was at school and I don't remember anything about it, I judge Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory as a standalone film rather than an adaptation of a book. In turn, I can't help looking at the 2005 film as an adaptation of the 1971 film.
It's not though of course, both were different interpretations of the same book. Nothing originally from the 1970's film appears in the 2005 one.
I've not read CATCF since school but when I saw the 2005 version it did all come flooding back to me as it is very loyal to what Dahl wrote, the songs are in the book for example
WP
He wrote it originally but then after he didn't make some deadlines it was totally re-written by someone else. Dahl disowned the film. for similar reasons why I was never keen on it.
According to Wikipedia Dahl's first choice was for Spike Milligan as Willy Wonka and Jon Pertwee was also in the running. Both would have been interesting, definately less menacing than Gene Wilder.
That's because it was originally to promote Quaker's Willy Wonka branded chocolate bars - hence they changed the name to 'Willy Wonka and The Chocolate factory'.
Yepp
They commissioned a film to promote a chocolate bar, and then couldn't agree on a formulation apparently. They made a thumping loss on the entire project and it wasn't until they'd sold the rights for a song to Warner Brothers that the film started making money.
He did the screenplay though, didn't he?
He wrote it originally but then after he didn't make some deadlines it was totally re-written by someone else. Dahl disowned the film. for similar reasons why I was never keen on it.
According to Wikipedia Dahl's first choice was for Spike Milligan as Willy Wonka and Jon Pertwee was also in the running. Both would have been interesting, definately less menacing than Gene Wilder.
Quote:
I love the fact that the film is copyrighted to Quaker Oats
That's because it was originally to promote Quaker's Willy Wonka branded chocolate bars - hence they changed the name to 'Willy Wonka and The Chocolate factory'.
Yepp
They commissioned a film to promote a chocolate bar, and then couldn't agree on a formulation apparently. They made a thumping loss on the entire project and it wasn't until they'd sold the rights for a song to Warner Brothers that the film started making money.
DA
Let's talk about the screen format of the 1971 film next.
Apparently filmed in 4:3 (or thereabouts?) and then made wide by sticking black bars at the top and bottom of the picture. This means that you actually see more of the picture if you watch the 4:3 version. Too much of the picture in fact, I have the 4:3 version on region 1 DVD and you can clearly see the hose blowing up Violet Beauregarde when she turns in to a blueberry, this is hidden on the widescreen version. Next time this is on TV, I may watch the 4:3 version next to the 16:9 TV version. That's just the kind of guy I am.
How common was it/is it to make widescreen films in this way?
Apparently filmed in 4:3 (or thereabouts?) and then made wide by sticking black bars at the top and bottom of the picture. This means that you actually see more of the picture if you watch the 4:3 version. Too much of the picture in fact, I have the 4:3 version on region 1 DVD and you can clearly see the hose blowing up Violet Beauregarde when she turns in to a blueberry, this is hidden on the widescreen version. Next time this is on TV, I may watch the 4:3 version next to the 16:9 TV version. That's just the kind of guy I am.
How common was it/is it to make widescreen films in this way?
VM
Now that's interesting - I remember reading a page about that, specifically a certain film starring John Cleese:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2481/3951931426_bbb08dba59.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3518/3951153587_c7448a1a4b.jpg
The black bars were removed for the home video release, which clearly shows Mr. Cleese is in fact wearing shorts, when it's supposed to be implied that, of course, he isn't wearing anything.
The pictures are from a webpage but I couldn't find it so the ones here are from a blog.
EDIT: This isn't the exact page but it has the same shots and a few more in higher quality. http://www.twowiresthin.com/aspect/
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2481/3951931426_bbb08dba59.jpg http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3518/3951153587_c7448a1a4b.jpg
The black bars were removed for the home video release, which clearly shows Mr. Cleese is in fact wearing shorts, when it's supposed to be implied that, of course, he isn't wearing anything.
The pictures are from a webpage but I couldn't find it so the ones here are from a blog.
EDIT: This isn't the exact page but it has the same shots and a few more in higher quality. http://www.twowiresthin.com/aspect/
NJ
The option of "full screen / formatted to fit your TV" was one of the biggest gimmicks going with regards to home videos when the concept was first introduced. Movies have been widescreen pretty much exclusively since the 1950s. Wonka would have been originally intended to be seen not in that 4:3 "full screen" crap but in 1:85:1, which is effectively the movie equivalent of TV "action safe" zones. However on a widescreen TV you will lose some picture at the sides, but nowhere near as you do on a pan-and-scan setup.
When a movie is full-screen formatted, all you're doing is removing the black bars that crop the picture, which then exposes a bunch of other things that were not meant to to be seen - things like boom mics, hoses and the like.
Most movies are made and intended to be seen this way - in widescreen.
Neil Jones
Founding member
Let's talk about the screen format of the 1971 film next.
Apparently filmed in 4:3 (or thereabouts?) and then made wide by sticking black bars at the top and bottom of the picture. This means that you actually see more of the picture if you watch the 4:3 version. Too much of the picture in fact, I have the 4:3 version on region 1 DVD and you can clearly see the hose blowing up Violet Beauregarde when she turns in to a blueberry, this is hidden on the widescreen version. Next time this is on TV, I may watch the 4:3 version next to the 16:9 TV version. That's just the kind of guy I am.
How common was it/is it to make widescreen films in this way?
Apparently filmed in 4:3 (or thereabouts?) and then made wide by sticking black bars at the top and bottom of the picture. This means that you actually see more of the picture if you watch the 4:3 version. Too much of the picture in fact, I have the 4:3 version on region 1 DVD and you can clearly see the hose blowing up Violet Beauregarde when she turns in to a blueberry, this is hidden on the widescreen version. Next time this is on TV, I may watch the 4:3 version next to the 16:9 TV version. That's just the kind of guy I am.
How common was it/is it to make widescreen films in this way?
The option of "full screen / formatted to fit your TV" was one of the biggest gimmicks going with regards to home videos when the concept was first introduced. Movies have been widescreen pretty much exclusively since the 1950s. Wonka would have been originally intended to be seen not in that 4:3 "full screen" crap but in 1:85:1, which is effectively the movie equivalent of TV "action safe" zones. However on a widescreen TV you will lose some picture at the sides, but nowhere near as you do on a pan-and-scan setup.
When a movie is full-screen formatted, all you're doing is removing the black bars that crop the picture, which then exposes a bunch of other things that were not meant to to be seen - things like boom mics, hoses and the like.
Most movies are made and intended to be seen this way - in widescreen.