Strange and Weird Polls (#4)

[Syrill]

The old ones were freaky...and hopefully the new ones aren't [I haven't seen them so I don't know...] but the old ones just scared me...as they did when they appeared on somebody's sig...

[Kugetsu]

Um... can't support the mangling of the original Oompa Loompas, so obviously the old.

[Tadashi Rein]

IM so glad someone mad a topic of this! THE OLD ONES! the new ones are weird they have anntennes on their heads and dont look like they came form a forest at all they also look creepy *shivers*

[Zero!]

I haven't seen the new movie, but I've seen the oompa loompas in it, and I like the old ones much better. I will always picture oompa loompas being orange-faced green-haired pudgy midgits. ^_^

[Maureen]

I like the new ones. The old ones didn't have cool jumpsuits.

[Sapphire Faerie]

You know, the original Oompa Loompas (meaning in the original version of the book) are rarely seen or heard about these days due to being very politically incorrect. Later versions of the books had different versions of the Oompa Loomps.
But, I can tell you this. The original Oompa Loompas were not short orange men with green hair and white overalls. So please, please, don't refer to them as the originals and complain that Tim Burton changed them. If you must refer to them as anything, refer to them as the 1971 film version Oompa Loompas. They are a product of the screenwriter's imagination, not of the author's.
The new movie is not a remake of the old one. It is it's own version of the book. The screenwriter had never seen the 1971 film when he wrote the screenplay for the new movie. It's based entirely on the book. As it should be.
For the record Roald Dahl was still alive when the 1971 version was made. And he hated it. He hated the way his book got mangled.

[Inexistence]

Well said Sapphire, I'd also like to add something.

I think the new film was actually made from a small loophole, Dahl, after seeing the film, legally made it so none of his other books could be made into movies. He may have forgotten to not allow CatCF to be remade.

[fzun]

The new ones. They have amazing choreography XD

[DM was on fire!]

Can't say either, really. Never watched it, never read it.

I'm so cool. XD

[Kugetsu]

You know, the original Oompa Loompas (meaning in the original version of the book) are rarely seen or heard about these days due to being very politically incorrect. Later versions of the books had different versions of the Oompa Loomps.
But, I can tell you this. The original Oompa Loompas were not short orange men with green hair and white overalls. So please, please, don't refer to them as the originals and complain that Tim Burton changed them. If you must refer to them as anything, refer to them as the 1971 film version Oompa Loompas. They are a product of the screenwriter's imagination, not of the author's.
The new movie is not a remake of the old one. It is it's own version of the book. The screenwriter had never seen the 1971 film when he wrote the screenplay for the new movie. It's based entirely on the book. As it should be.
For the record Roald Dahl was still alive when the 1971 version was made. And he hated it. He hated the way his book got mangled.

You make a great point, but they're still the original as far as movies go.

[Christopher]

I thought the shiny (latex?) suits were kinda odd, but both the Orange '71 Oompa Loompas and the new ones are creepy and amusing in their own ways.

[Tharkun]

You know, the original Oompa Loompas (meaning in the original version of the book) are rarely seen or heard about these days due to being very politically incorrect. Later versions of the books had different versions of the Oompa Loomps.

Yeah, I have one of those editions. I'm not normally one to call things offensive, but that... that was offensive. "Oh, I saved them from dooming themselves to a life of eating caterpillars and beetles, and they're so happy working in a factory and moonlighting as test subjects for freakish products while paid only on chocolate..." If they kept that story of Wonka's in the new book, changing their appearance barely helps.

However, their songs are pure genius. I haven't seen the new movie, but they should totally keep the Mike Teavee chant in its entirety. (Though it isn't a musical, so there's not a prayer, alas.)

For the record Roald Dahl was still alive when the 1971 version was made. And he hated it. He hated the way his book got mangled.

Yes! Someone agrees with me, and it's Roald Dahl! Poor special effects aren't usually enough of an issue to care about, but these, especially that twisted mockery of the candy landscape... ugh. Wonka may be crazy, but he's not depressed, he's manic and slightly homicidal. The Oompa Loompas were witty, not insipid. And what was up with Slugworth, Undercover Tester of Virtue? Anyway, the whole thing had a severe lack of the Roald Dahl Bounce.

[MyleneFarmer]

Well said Sapphire, I'd also like to add something.

I think the new film was actually made from a small loophole, Dahl, after seeing the film, legally made it so none of his other books could be made into movies. He may have forgotten to not allow CatCF to be remade.

Umm...what about James and the Giant Peach? It's a Dahl book, isn't it? And it was made into movie back in 1996. I'm not familiar with any of the books or movies, so maybe there was a reason that it was an exception? *shrug*

[Tharkun]

Yes, and they also filmed Matilda in the '90s, and what they did to it made the old Charlie movie look like a faithful representation. I suspect an heir who has gone the route of Dr. Seuss's wife or A.A. Milne's son.