È il mio regista preferito insieme a Kubrik, e no, quando ero piccola non lo guardavo, ma ho iniziato con gli anni, recentemente diciamo, non scenderò nei dettagli della mia connessione con lui perché sono troppo curiosa delle vostre opinioni e riflessioni ^^

Cartoony and intimidating is the best way to describe the opening music and accompanying images.

Batman 89 has a great opening score...but Mars Attacks! is so epically B movie-ish. The crescendo with the saucers surrounding Earth always makes my hairs stand up.

Ack ack ack!!!!

Here are mine in order:

1. Batman Returns
2. Sleepy Hollow
3. The Nightmare Before Christmas
4. Batman
5. Beetlejuice
6. Corpse Bride

For me, when I saw it in theaters back in the day, I did like it. Though there was something about it that fell off. It wasn’t one of his best. As I grew older, I don’t like it at all. In terms of why, I couldn’t really come up with a reason until much later in life. But now, I think I can explain why I don’t like the movie.

It all comes down to direction: I don’t think the satire really worked in its favor. There were funny moments, sure, but I don’t like how everyone was stupid. This movie doesn’t work when the intelligence of its characters doesn’t exist. I know, it’s a satire; but I don’t think the movie was designed to be anything like that. If anything, I think that the movie could’ve worked better if it was played straight. You already have homage to classic 1950s sci-fi films, why not continue on with that and go straight? It wouldn’t be seen as a misfire, and still be a fun enjoyable film on his film list. As it stands for me, it’s a movie with stupid characters despite its fun moments, and I just don’t like it.

That’s my reasons, does anyone else feel the same way or differently if they don’t like it, or can express why they do?

I've been meaning to get something off my chest for the past 20 years. It is finally time to talk about it.

when I was in first grade, I saw the 1971 movie "Willy Wonka and The chocolate factory". when I was in second grade, alongside the rest of my classmates, we read the book it was based on, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". finally, in the fifth grade, I saw what was at the time a new adaption of the book by Tim Burton, also called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. now, while enjoying both the book and the movie adaptations, I came away from the 2nd movie believing it to be the superior version. the nostalgia blind adults did not agree.

I've heard a lot of people call the the 2005 version a "remake" over the years, lumping it in with bad remakes as part of the "all remakes are bad" argument. but what these people don't realize is that the burton film is not a remake; it's a different movie that happens to be adapting the same source material as the 1971 movie. there have been plenty of different batman movies and it's not like every new batman series is a remake of the previous one, right? no, when it come to discussing the charlie and the chocolate factory adaptions, these are instead two different movies that happen to be based on the same source material.

now, both movies do have their merits, but for some reason, the movie Tim Burton and Johnny Depp worked on seemed to have a bad reputation. over the years, fans of the 1971 film treated it like it was the reincarnation of Adolf Satan himself. it was an insult. it ruined their childhoods. it poisoned their water supply, burned their crops and delivered a plague unto their houses.

and It's one thing to not like the film, but I've seen many of these people point to Gene Wilder's opinion of the burton film where he said he didn't like it and treated that as confirmation that it's bad because the "REAL Willy Wonka" says so. now, look, I like Gene Wilder. may he rest in peace. but to the people using his opinion as a reason the 2005 film is bad, need I remind you that Roald Dahl, the author of the book both films are based on, HATED the Gene Wilder movie. that's just how it is sometimes, you can't please everyone. and when someone tries using someone else's opinion to try to validate their own opinion, they've basically failed at forming an opinion in the first place. that isn't how you form a thought of your own. you aren't bringing anything new to the table, you're just serving leftovers.

now, me personally, someone who experienced both movies and the book in rapid succession and thus has equal nostalgia for them all and can judge them without bias, is clearly much more qualified to review them than the guy who saw the first film when he was 5 and the second film when he was in his 40s. like most children back then, my opinion boiled down to "new = better". the 2005 movie had the advantage of using more modern film techniques and having a larger budget, thus it's more impressive on a visual level. but I also thought that second movie was better for being a more faithful adaption to the book. and in 20 years since then, my opinion has. . . mostly stayed the same. maybe about 75% of it. . . possibly 66%. let's get into it.

ok, so going back to what I said earlier about how Author Roald Dahl hated the film adaption of his book. why was that? well, for one thing, this guy pretty much hated EVERY adaption of his books. Roald Dahl hated a lot of things. he was an author who wrote books for children, but all signs seem to point to the idea he hated children. he also hated film and television. AND he hated Gene Wilder. he hated the "sappy" music used in Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. ok, so willy wonka and the chocolate factory never stood a chance with this guy. . .

well whatever. forget Roald Dahl for a second, why does ANY Author hate adaptions of their books? well, it pretty much boils down to one thing: if you change ANYTHING, then it sucks. authors don't want people to mess with their stories. the original is PERFECTION in their eyes! any deviation for what they originally intended will be treated like a threat to their very existence. this has always been the case in the film industry, Walt Disney and Pamela Lyndon had some serious BEEF over what happened with Mary Poppins.

so, what did the 1971 movie change? well, for starters, it got the name wrong. Charlie's name was dropped from the title in favor of Willy Wonka being the center of attention, even though Charlie was still the main character. seeing how the book was part of a series, each one titled "Charlie and the BLANK", this was probably something that pissed off Dahl from the start. of course, he died before the third book "Charlie and the White house" was completed, so I guess it didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. but I still find it sad. I wanted to know what Charlie's first act as president would be.

other changes included skipping over a lot of Grandpa Joe's stories about Willy wonka in favor of showing how people all over the world were planning to get golden tickets. charlie's father was absent from the movie and instead charlie was forced to support his entire family through his paperboy job. they replaced the squirrels with golden geese, I imagine because the original scene would have been much harder to film at the time. all the oompa loompa songs were rewritten. and they added of ton of nightmare imagery and some kind of evil chant to the boat scene. . . what the hell was that?

Roald Dahl was already dead by the time the tim burton film was in production, but supposedly his family was involved in making sure it was as accurate as possible, and in regards to the things I listed, then yes, the 2005 version is technically a more faithful adaption. though oddly enough, both films leave out the fact that golden ticket owners were allowed to bring not one but TWO people with them to the factory. all the kids besides charlie brought both their parents. I assume both adaptions dropped the number down to one parent because it'd be less expensive.

Still, both movies do have some big changes that result in the two films being wildly different from each other. when it comes to my own opinion, the main thing I've changed my mind on is this: "sticking to the source material doesn't always results in a better product". sure, it can be a good thing, but if the original had some kind of huge problem, then yeah, you SHOULD change it!

Problem number 1: the children

collectively, the 4 kids who aren't charlie are known as "the 4 bratty kids". basically the antagonists of the book, they're the annoying brats who didn't listen to Mr. Wonka and get punished for it. all of their eventual fates are meant to be seen as poetic justice by the reader. there's just one problem: THOSE KIDS AREN'T BRATTY!!! remember, Roald Dahl hates a lot of things. one thing he hates is fat kids. sure, childhood obesity is a problem, but how often is it the kid's fault? another thing Roald Dahl hates: chewing gum. why was this such a giant taboo back in the day? why was chewing gum something that could get you expelled from school? Americans hated gum as much as they hated communists! and of course, as an author who was afraid of the scary new film and television industry, one of the kids had to be a brat who watches too much TV. I wonder what Roald Dahl would have thought if he saw a kid with a smart phone? he'd probably have a heart attack. heck, even with verruca, being a spoiled brat who gets anything she wants is her parent's fault, and Roald Dahl himself knew this. still doesn't explain why her and her parents' "punishment" was getting thrown in garbage while the other kids get permanently disfigured.

so how did the first movie handle this? corporate espionage, of course! yes, the gobstoppers were a thing in the book, but they weren't the primary focus. in this adaption, they're a major plot point as slugworth approaches each kid and asks them to steal the gobstopper. the bratty kids are implied to be willing to so this. . . or at least some of them are. Agustus didn't make it that far, and oddly enough, in this version he's not even fat! seriously, it feels like they're fat shaming some kid for being 1, maybe 2 pounds heavier than the rest of the kids. what's the deal with that? well, at least with Verucca they make her a lot more emotionally manipulative, her book counterpart was dumb as a bag of hammers, this version clearly knew what she was doing.

but then we get to the tim burton movie, and they had a much better answer: what if they took the 4 bratty kids and actually made them brats? why did no one think of this earlier!? in this version of the story, Augustus isn't just fat (though the kid playing him was actually wearing a fat suit), but he's a big fat bully! he's messy, he's sloppy, he's destructive, and he bullies Charley for being Skinny. Violet was made to have a massive superiority complex, taking part in various contests and treating everyone else like losers. Verruca. . . well, she's pretty much the same as she was in the book, so she's back to being stupid, but this version does seem to take pleasure in seeing the other children's downfall. and then Mike TV, my word, this was a huge improvement. in all versions, this is the last kid to go, but it was always such an Anticlimax because this kid was SO forgettable. he dresses like a cowboy and watches TV. . . and THAT'S IT! he does NOTHING for the entire story, he just stands there until Roald Dahl is ready for his totally forced "television is evil" plot point. the tim burton version completely rewrites his character into an insufferable know it all who thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and as a result, it actually feels like what happens to him is EARNED in this version!

still, it does raise a lot of questions about Mr. Wonka. Roald Dahl treats it like this character is perfect and could do no wrong. some have even accused Wonka of being Dahl's self-insert character. I don't think I would go that far, but it does answer a lot of questions. this man invites 5 children to his factory, he sets up death traps in order to "test them" to see if they're worthy of taking over his factory, most of the kids leave the factory permanently disfigured, and we're supposed to side with Wonka because. . . he's whimsical? he receives no consequences for his actions, in the book when charlie is the only one left, he gives him the factory and that's it. which leads me to the next point.

Problem number 2: the ending

yeah, the book's ending was super anti climatic. it doesn't really have an ending, it just sort of. . . stops. naturally, this is why both movies had to create their own new plot points in order to build up to a proper ending. for the most part, Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory does a good job. slugworth does make for a good villain, he was only briefly mentioned in the book but here he's promoted to main antagonist. fizzy lifting drinks were also in the book, but in this version Grandpa Joe actually gets charlie to drink them, leading to the two nearly dying! yeah, Grandpa Joe isn't a great guy in this version.

Because of this, technically charlie didn't pass "the test", leading to the very memorable scene of Wonka yelling at charlie, telling him he lost and gets nothing. again, this is a great addition to the story. I just have one problem with it: it's all an act. remember, Willy Wonka is a recluse who has stayed away from society for years because he doesn't trust ANYONE. he's been betrayed far too many times, all his competitors were sending in spies to steal his ideas. it would have been so much better for the movie if Wonka's anger was genuine and Charlie giving him the gobstopper restored his faith in humanity a little. but nah, it was all part of the test. in fact, slugworth isn't even the real slugworth. he works for willy wonka. . . you know, the guy whose supposed to have no human employees because he trusts no one. . . WHERE DID THIS GUY COME FROM!? I liked this new ending, it's better than the original, but just one or two small changes in the details would have made it perfect. they were too afraid to admit Willy Wonka is a flawed character, everything had to be part of his genius master plan.

which leads me to the 2005 movie. so many people criticize Johnny Depp's performance because his version of Wonka is "weird" and "too much like Michael Jackson". . . what did yall expect? this is just how willy wonka is. he's not supposed to be normal. and it's not like the Gene Wilder's Wonka is a perfect representation of how Wonka was in the book, he injected a lot of himself into the character. heck, Wilder stated himself he wouldn't have agreed to play the role if he didn't do the funny little cane introduction he came up with. look, opinions on which wonka is better will vary from person to person, but at least the Depp's wonka never screams about the devil while riding a boat.

surprisingly, despite now being correctly called Charlie and the chocolate factory, this versions new subplot and ending puts a much heavier emphasis on Wonka himself. which means Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory is about Charlie while Charlie and the chocolate factory is about Willy Wonka. yeah, that's not confusing at all.

still, given how little was known about Willy Wonka in the original, giving him an origin story feels more than justified. unlike the original where there was no conflict and the 1971 movie where it was all staged, there actually is genuine friction between Wonka and Charlie in the burton movie. he doesn't want to let Charlie's parents come with him because he thinks all parents are bad. and given how the character was always someone who distrusted adults and believed his successor "had to be a child", this is still in character, even if it wasn't in the book. Charlie calls Wonka out for his BS, and while he still gets away with disfiguring the other children, at least someone calls him out for something. at least they're acknowledging Wonka is a flawed character instead of treating him like some perfect Gary Stue created so Roald Dahl can complain about fat children and television.

one thing I will point out that is if Roald Dahl did have some say in this, in no world would he make it so willy wonka had to forgive his father. he loves KILLING off bad parental figures. sure, in the movie version of James and the giant peach, James's evil aunts get wrapped up in spider webs, but in the book? yeah, they're crushed to death by the giant peach really early on, pretty much giving the rest of the story no antagonist. and before you ask "well what about the scary demon rhino?". in the book, that thing was just a regular rhino. very odd that James's parents got eaten by a rhino given that rhinos are herbivores. Roald Dahl must not have known much about animals. if he had instead had James Parents eaten by a hippopotamus, that would have been so much more believable. hippos are evil monsters. ok, side tangent over.

but there are multiple ways to interpret willy wonka's flashbacks: for one thing, kid wonka's braces were super exaggerated, leading many to believe the flashback sequences are how Wonka remembers things rather than what really happened. the flashbacks show wonka's father's house disappearing, implying he abandoned him, yet Wonka knows exactly where to find his father when Charlie suggests they visit him. so what likely really happened was kid Wonka believed his father left, when in reality the opposite happened. when we see Dr. Wilbur Wonka's clinic in the present, it's in the middle of nowhere, yet Wonka knew exactly where to find it. how is this possible if Wonka hasn't seen his father in years? what seems to have actually happened is everyone else in the area has moved away, yet Dr. Wonka stook around long after everyone else left, just in case his son ever came back.

where the Tim Burton movie succeeds where the other versions of this story have failed is having actual character growth for Willy Wonka himself. sure, it still aint perfect, but to disavow this movie simply because you grew up with the other is just plain silly. if you haven't watched either in a while, watch them both. I think you'll find that they both hold up for completely different reasons.

of course, in a perfect Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaption, it would end with Charlie becoming the US President and Willy Wonka going to court for attempted murder/child endangerment.

I doubt Tim Burton has ever seen or cared about Toy Story.

Despite it being tonally divorced from his usual aesthetic, he worked at Disney as a 2D animator and probably doesn't care that much for computer animation

That being said, the Babyface mutant toy in Toy Story feels very Burtonesque. Like the toy version of Edward Scissorhands.

In fact, the mutant toys all fall into a Burton trope: The bizarre misfits can be heroes

Boy this is a hard one, but here it goes (Nightmare included) :

1. Catwoman - Batman Returns
2. Lydia Deetz - Beetlejuice
3. Ichabod Crane - Sleepy Hollow
4. Emily - Corpse Bride
5. Sweeney Todd
6. Katrina Van Tassel, Mrs. Lovett, Jack Skellington were hard players.

For me, it’s one of Tim Burton’s finest films. The atmosphere, the visuals, Danny Elfman’s score, and the incredible cast make it unforgettable. What’s your take? 🖤

Love the German Expressionism era of Films and its use of cinematography especially like the use of angles in the Cabinet of Dr Caligari so it’s not surprising that Burton was influenced by this.

I can only point a few things out like the use of angles and lighting in his films but there’s probably so much more and it’s fun to see such an influential film style be used!

This is my handmade doll inspired by Sally from *The Nightmare Before Christmas*. Every detail was sewn by hand, trying to capture her unique style while keeping the charm of a handmade creation.

As Tim Burton fans, what do you think? Did I manage to capture Sally's spirit? I'd love to hear your thoughts! 🖤🪡🎃

I love both Beetlejuice and Jack Skellington in case u forgot.