Oompa loompa doompity doo. I’ve got another puzzle for you.
What do you do when you need a quick buck?
Take an old franchise and not give a fuck.
An origin story that looks really lame.
You know exactly who’s to blame.
The head of warner brothers.
Glorious 👌
At first glance I thought this looks likes some gritty Tim burton reboot. Then I realized we already got that.
To be fair, the Tim Burton film was far closer to the original novel. And that’s what I grew up with, so the 70s gene wilder version (that Dahl hated) never gelled with me.
Just like Stephen King hated the far superior The Shining movie. The author’s can be wrong sometimes.
King: What’s with these changes? Jack Torrence is supposed to overcome the evil and save his family!
Kubrick: Dude, have you even read this story? Jack Torrence is an irredeemable monster.
King: [tearing up] I’M THAT IRREDEEMABLE MONSTER
Idk, I liked the book more than the movie but maybe I’m missing something.
Kubrick’s movie was a good, scary movie that was definitely inspired by the book.
The TV series was lower quality, but I believe a better adaptation of the book.
I really appreciate that movie version of Dr Sleep did an amazing job of blending Kubrick’s version with King’s novels. Enough so that I think it pulls Kubrick’s movie back into line where it feels less divergent from the original book.
Oh, maybe this explains it.
According to King, the only conversation they about the book/film was Kubrick called him and asked whether he believed in God.
I (and my partner) have read into that Kubrick did indeed see into the book that King was writing about himself and wanted to get a handle on what kind of frame of reference King had in doing so.
I didnt read the original print of Charlie and the chocolate factory but:
Didnt dalh orginally write the oompah loompahs to be black pygmies from africa?
In the very first draft, which was changed upon initial release if I recall correctly?
It changed after his publisher made him do it.
I’m already sick of this kid. He’s soulless. He was raised from birth to be an actor and it shows in his lack of humanity
Yeesh that’s harsh. I think he’s quite talented. I’ll take him over yet another nepobaby.
He plays a certain role very well - the moody, pouty, teenager that’s grappling with coming to his own. But beyond that, he doesn’t have much of a range, and tends to do too much when the director doesn’t rein him in. I think he’s talented, but not worthy of all the overt thirstiness that Film Twitter bestows on him.
I don’t know much of his story and growing up so I’m not gonna comment on that but I didn’t really like him in dune. Just rubbed me the wrong way for some reason
Yea it wasn’t until someone wrote that he was the weakest part of the movie that I realised I basically felt the same way. Every actor fills their role in that film (I think Bardem as Stilgar is my favourite) but there’s something not quite there in his performance. To be fair it’s probably a hard role to cast for. But yea, in going to see part 2, his acting isn’t what I’m looking forward to, and that is honestly a bit of a shame. But you know, maybe that’s Paul, maybe you don’t really see him … I’m wondering if there are some quotes to back this up now.
I completely disagree.
I dont know what i was looking for in Paul Atreides charactet but i cant imagine a more fitting person to play him.
Moody awkward, young and alittle entitled. Just like a 16 year old who is to inherit a whole planet.
I didn’t hate his portrayal, not at all actually. A more accurate statement would be that it felt, to me, to be a weak point of the film.
I agree with you, generally, it’s just for me there was a hollowness there. But I can totally see his performance working very well for others. I’m definitely looking forward to part 2!!
Oompa Loompa trafficking is tight!
Fuck no.
Looks pretty good to me!
Granted, it’s a screenshot and still way too early to tell overall.
The trailer looks okay, but I didn’t watch the Burton one as it just looked a little off.
