Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Don’t care care how, I want The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day now!!!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with today’s Behind the Scenes Pic!

Veruca, sweetheart, angel… Why is it this girl from the fantastic Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory that I picture in my mind’s eye when I hear that twit on the Alamo’s drunk txter PSA?

I have to run out the door for my first big day in LA, but I had to post this up first, the folks behind Willy Wonka setting up the I Want It Now number. Hope you guys enjoy!

Thanks to a reader Bill Arthur for sending this one along!

 

 

If you have a behind the scenes shot you’d like to submit to this column, you can email me at quint@aintitcool.com.

Why doesn’t tomorrow’s behind the scenes pic help the turtle?

-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 8, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Shouldn't have been remade

    by LordPorkington

    The original was just fine.

  • June 8, 2011, 2:58 p.m. CST

    First!

    by eloy

    That's pretty much it. I liked this flick, too.

  • June 8, 2011, 3:01 p.m. CST

    okay, I slipped there

    by eloy

    not that anyone gives a shit

  • I was TOTALLY bummed when I found out the movie was 10 years old (at that point) and she was in her 20s.

  • June 8, 2011, 3:03 p.m. CST

    TMNT tomorrow?

    by UltimaRex

    I kid, I kid. I know it's Blade Runner. Don't kill mmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

  • June 8, 2011, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Tomorrow, finally!

    by ames prather

    Bladerunner! ??Pseudo?? Out.

  • June 8, 2011, 3:06 p.m. CST

    "She was a bad egg."

    by Squinty CGI Flynn

  • June 8, 2011, 3:07 p.m. CST

    you know, I almost completely forgot there was that awful remake. Thanks.

    by Squinty CGI Flynn

  • June 8, 2011, 3:08 p.m. CST

    "Attacked BTSPOTD off the shoulder of Orion..."

    by Squinty CGI Flynn

  • June 8, 2011, 3:11 p.m. CST

    What a needlessly remade movie...

    by Aaronthenia

    The original was so great as a child and I can't imagine a child today watching the Burton version and feeling the wonderment I felt for the original. Maybe it is just me but the remake has zero of the qualities that the original has. The remake is soulless and feels detached while the original has heart. Burton goes for that same "Tim Burton" look in a lot of his movies but it was so the wrong motif to continue with in the remake. I think the practical effects of the original add to the charm of the movie, as well as the truly great performance by Wilder that Depp thankfully didn't try to emulate.

  • June 8, 2011, 3:11 p.m. CST

    What a needlessly remade movie...

    by Aaronthenia

    The original was so great as a child and I can't imagine a child today watching the Burton version and feeling the wonderment I felt for the original. Maybe it is just me but the remake has zero of the qualities that the original has. The remake is soulless and feels detached while the original has heart. Burton goes for that same "Tim Burton" look in a lot of his movies but it was so the wrong motif to continue with in the remake. I think the practical effects of the original add to the charm of the movie, as well as the truly great performance by Wilder that Depp thankfully didn't try to emulate.

  • June 8, 2011, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Met her about a month ago

    by TheMcflyFarm

    At the Chiller convention in NJ. We were in the room with all the Wonka kids and one of my friends started loudly quoting her lines and singing her song from the movie. She then came over to us and said, "Who's singing my song?" in a jokingly stern voice. She was really nice. Talked to us for a little while, took a group photo for free, asked if we knew where she could get some alcohol, etc. All the Wonka kids seemed real nice. Certainly more well adjusted than many of today's child stars.

  • June 8, 2011, 3:14 p.m. CST

    $

    by CT1

  • June 8, 2011, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Not a remake.

    by EWR3378

    While i agree in the new movie was nowhere near as good as the old one, it was not a remake. It was simply another adaptation of the original book. The word remake is being carelessly thrown around these days.

  • June 8, 2011, 3:33 p.m. CST

    nice pic

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    awesome movie

  • June 8, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Yes, Burton's was simply another adaptation of the book.

    by sweeneydave

    This is a film where every quote exhudes such joy and whimsy that when I read Dahls original book, I was disappointed. The Wilder film was actually BETTER than the source material. Great flick.

  • June 8, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Very complex

    by CT1

    Veruca Salt represents the greed of studio executives.

  • Think of it. So many films that people love and cherish that are based on film adaptations, take alot of creative liberties. Some other examples that come to mind are Mary Poppins, Jungle Book, even Kubrick's take on The Shining. Of course, because some people enjoy those films so much, they almost become brainwashed cult-members, proclaiming that the film is 'absolute,' and anything else is false and wrong. I was more enamored with Denise Nickerson (aka Violet) as a kid, and that led to some strange mental scars that could have been a deleted scene in John Waters' 'A Dirty Shame.'

  • June 8, 2011, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Burton's was crap

    by disfigurehead

    When you are a kid you don't realize how weird the original is until you look at it as an adult. Trippy.

  • June 8, 2011, 3:57 p.m. CST

    "Snozzberry? Whoever heard of a snozzberry?"

    by spidercoz

    "We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of the dreams." Best answer to a sarcastic question ever. Also an outstanding poem on its own. Yeah I had a crush on Veruca too.

  • June 8, 2011, 4:09 p.m. CST

    awesome film.

    by billyhitchcock1

    wish there was a really good dvd/blu set for it.

  • June 8, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    No, it WAS a remake

    by Mel

    Someone already made a Willy Wonka movie. Tim Burton made one, too. Was it a sequel? No, he remade it. To do something that's already been done it to remake it. You could sit here and claim there's no such thing as a remake - if you're to claim that any "remake" is simply an adaptation of the original script. Both movies are adaptations, but since there already a Willy Wonka movie made - Tim Burton's is a remake. These are the facts.

  • June 8, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST

    "No, it WAS a remake " No, it was not.

    by EWR3378

    So every movie version of Hamlet is a remake of the previous one? The Dark Knight is a remake of the 1989 Batman simply because they both feature The Joker causing chaos in Gotham city? The original Willy Wonka is based on the original book, and like most remakes changes some things. The new version with Depp is ANOTHER adaption of the original book. Its really not that hard of a concept to follow. True remakes are movie that are based on previous ORIGINAL movies. Oceans's Eleven is a remake. The upcomong Fright Night is a remake.

  • From the Wikipedia Definition of remake: "For example, 2001's Ocean's Eleven is a remake of the 1960 film, while 1989's Batman is a re-interpretation of the comic book source material which also inspired 1966's Batman."

  • June 8, 2011, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Not TMNT but Blade Runner?

    by kikuchiyoboy

    Leon Kowalski

  • June 8, 2011, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Ah... Never mind I didn't click your post

    by kikuchiyoboy

    But it would be awesome if it ended up as TMNT as the ol' switcheroo. Heh.

  • I hear alot of people say: 'That was lame. They replaced the geese with squirrels. Why did they do that?'

  • June 8, 2011, 4:51 p.m. CST

    Ninja kick the damn rabbit!

    by THE_CHOPPAH

  • June 8, 2011, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner tomorrow.

    by SAILOR_RIPLEY

    "What's a tortoise?" "You know what a turtle is?" "Of course" "Same thing" "I never saw a turtle before, but I understand what you mean"

  • June 8, 2011, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Tommorow's pic is from Blade Runner.

    by KilliK

    Cant fucking wait.

  • June 8, 2011, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Bossa nova!

    by spidercoz

    Chevy nova?

  • June 8, 2011, 5:49 p.m. CST

    Willy Wonka & the Methamphetamine Factory

    by animatronicmojo

    I love Dahl, but I think this story does work best as it’s intended to, as a fun bedtime adventure, not a movie. First of all, the best comedy and excitement all comes in the first act with all the hype over who will get the golden tickets, and then Charlie, the honest underdog, getting a spot. This would be the climax of most films right there, and Burton's version did do this part passably well. <br> However, then, the second act begins with ridiculously high expectations, and though this is really what the story is about, expectations and desire versus what is real and necessary, a lot is riding on how magical and captivating this Wonka guy and his factory will be. In the book, Wonka’s a delightfully unhinged and manic cartoon character. Wilder imbues him a more gently tortured humanistic edge, whereas Depp's directionless mugging and primping was an epic disaster of ineffectual shtick. <br> Worse, once we’re inside, the story proceeds as a slasher flick would, with one ill-mannered kid after another tortured and dispatched to horrors unknown for the audience's self-righteous and sadomasochistic amusement. Personally, I'm just not all that entertained by seeing children hurt or attacked while their ass-hat parents stand around looking dumbfounded, no matter how selfish and narcissistic a little brat they were. I just get no pleasure from it; it actually sickens me. In Burton’s version, this horror is compounded by cramming a wretched pastiche of bad music, hideous design and lame comedy down our throats in every ADD-loving second (which is pretty much his MO these days- presto, change-o, call it directing) so, by the time we are slogging our way wearily through his nonsensical third act, we are forced to endure encounters in heaven with Wonka’s dead dentist father!?!?! (OMG! Man, STOP IMPROVISING!!!) <br> The Mel Stuart version, while ultimately as much a flawed exercise in child abuse-themed show-tunes, has at least one positively unforgettable moment: when Gene Wilder gets all crazy-eyed and satanically freaky on his boat in a moment of raw Hunter S. Thompson-level bad craziness: <br> “There's no earthly way of knowing… Which direction we are going… There's no knowing where we're rowing… Or which way the river's flowing. Is it raining, is it snowing? Is a hurricane a-blowing? Not a speck of light is showing, So the danger must be growing! Are the fires of Hell a-glowing!? Is the grisly reaper mowing!!? Yes! The danger must be growing!! For the rowers keep on rowing!! And they're certainly not showing!! Any signs that they are slowing!!! AHHH!!! AHHHHHHH!! AHHHHHH!!!!!!!” (Classic children’s cinema at its finest).

  • June 8, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST

    no no no no no ewr3378....that's off topic

    by Mel

    The 2 Batman movies were based off of characters in a comic book. Both Willy Wonka movies used exact scenes from the book. Also, those 2 Batman movies did not share the same plot. The 2 Willy Wonka movies share identical plots. They're both adaptations, but the Batman example is very different from what we're talking about.

  • June 8, 2011, 6:08 p.m. CST

    and ewr3378 , you obviously didnt read what i said

    by Mel

    I could claim that any movie remake is an adaptation of the first movie's script. same thing as adapting a novel, right? All movies have scripts...similiar to a novel. And yes...every version of Hamlet is a remake because the movie was already made. IF YOU MAKE SOMETHING AGAIN IT IS A REMAKE. It doesnt make a fuck if there's a book. That has nothing to do with it. They're all remakes. Hell, by your logic every movie is an adaptation of the movie's script - right? so there's never been a remake in the history of film. they're ALL adaptations.

  • June 8, 2011, 6:15 p.m. CST

    There's lots of panty shots in Veruca's song.

    by Doctor_Strangepork

    And that's...nice.

  • June 8, 2011, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Georgie's Marvellous Medecine

    by david starling

    Does anyone remember the utterly cool moment on British children's TV in the '80's, when Rik Mayall read Georgie's Marvellous Medecine, on classic BBC1 show Jackanory? So many good Dahl stories still to remake. I was very disappointed with Burton's adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate factory - why couldn't he do the Twits, or Georgie's (as described above), or maybe even Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator? Would love to have seen the Vermicious Gnids at long bloody last!! And yup, the first Wonka movie was the best!!

  • June 8, 2011, 6:38 p.m. CST

    And if you don't believe me.......

    by david starling

    Here's part one for you to enjoy!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvg_y-jgpI

  • June 8, 2011, 7:19 p.m. CST

    melgibsoncalledmethenword , I did read your comment...

    by EWR3378

    ...and i was only using a book as the original source as an example. The first Willy Wonka was one adaption of the original book. Tim Burton's was another. Now if the first movie was an original screenplay, then yes the new one would be a remake. But each movie did didfferent things with the ORIGINAL source material, the BOOK.

  • June 8, 2011, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Same here, playkins

    by bah

    The movie is slightly older than I am, and realizing she was way older than me was a big letdown.

  • June 8, 2011, 7:59 p.m. CST

    "That's gonna be one confusing funeral."

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Another win for cocknasty.

  • June 8, 2011, 8:14 p.m. CST

    THOSE LIL FUCKERS GOT WHAT THEY DISERVED!!!

    by Tarantinos_Forehead

  • June 8, 2011, 8:15 p.m. CST

    One word to discribe this movie

    by Tarantinos_Forehead

    Karma

  • hjyutyy

  • June 8, 2011, 9:10 p.m. CST

    This pic was taken on...

    by banditmania

    on "Veruca" actress Julie Dawn Cole's 13th birthday, on 26 October 1970. PS And no one sang Happy Birthday to her and she hated chocolate.

  • June 8, 2011, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Burton's version is terribly underrated

    by Nasty In The Pasty

    But then again, so is Burton 90% of the time.

  • June 9, 2011, 12:40 a.m. CST

    ever seen a tortoise?

    by mojination

    same thing.

  • June 9, 2011, 12:55 a.m. CST

    Wilder version

    by TheComedian77

    Is schmaltzy shit, and Dahl did not like it. In fact it was turned into a vehicle for Gene Wilder, hence the fact that they called it "Willy Wonka....." rather than Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, which is the name of the book for Fraks sake. I noticed that when the new film came out, fans of the original said that they had got the title wrong!! Frakking morons. Dahl did not like the fact that it was a musical. You can prefer that version if you like. But calling the new version a remake is stupid. Forget the Batman comparison. So it's a remake if it has the same scenes? So then, every new version of Dracula is a remake. Every new version of Oliver Twist is a remake!!! "Oh, but Oliver Twist is meant to have songs!" Ever hear someone say that? No, because that would be retarded.

  • June 9, 2011, 4:45 a.m. CST

    Rik Mayall reading George's Marvellous Medicine

    by DonLogan

    Jackanory was mental. I also remember Tom Baker reading The Iron Man (The Iron Giant)

  • June 9, 2011, 5:15 a.m. CST

    that girl in the red dress

    by Norman Colson

    ...her character was such a spoiled bitch... im surprised willy didnt beat her over the head with his cane. he had the patience of a saint. lmao.

  • June 9, 2011, 7:04 a.m. CST

    I know Burtons versions is closer to the book........

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    But I still didn't like it. it was a solid effort though - it just never came together for me.

  • June 9, 2011, 7:35 a.m. CST

    So which is scarier - Oz blue monkeys or Oompah Loompahs

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    That's a tough call.

  • June 9, 2011, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Check out the anniversary DVD. It has commentary from ALL

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    the kids who are now adults. It's hysterical. Charlie's a vet by the way.

  • Now I kinda just want to slap her dad around.

  • And as great as Wilder's Wonka is, you have to admit, he's not the Wonka of the book.

  • June 9, 2011, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Never made it through "Cheer Up, Charlie"...

    by StatelyWayneManor

    ...or the acid trip boat ride.

  • "Remake." Going back to a previous FILM and remaking THAT film, not making a new adaptation of a novel or comic or play which served as a previous film's source material. Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" is an adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel. Gus Van Sant's remake of "Psycho" doesn't revisit the Bloch novel; it remakes Hitchcock's film. The miniseries of "The Shining" uses King's original novel, and the perspectives and viewpoints of the novel, as the basis for a new adaptation. It isn't a remake of Kubrick's film. King hated Kubrick's film, so he wouldn't hire Mick Garris to film a 'remake' of it. And Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is a NEW adaptation of Roald Dahl's original novel, with a NEW screenplay. It restores the original lyrics to the Oompa-Loompa songs, restores much of the darkness of the original book, and adds a couple of things that weren't in either the original film or the original novel--as NEW adaptations sometimes do. Of course, I've noticed that, in the internet age, many people don't care about the meanings of words, except what those words mean to them. That, and winning arguments, no matter how stupid they make themselves look doing so.

  • June 9, 2011, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Burton's version was most definitely NOT closer to the book

    by spidercoz

    christ, anybody around here ever actually READ a book?

  • June 9, 2011, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Burton's version is just terrible.

    by Flip63Hole

    It's a heartless, forgettable mess. Probably overrated if anything.

  • June 9, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Yeah, it was closer to the book

    by bah

    He added the dentist shit, but otherwise, yes, it was closer.

  • June 9, 2011, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Who would have made a better Wonka?

    by Dasinfogod

    Loved Wilder, but even as a kid when the movie came out, I realized that he was far too young to play the part. Wonka was a man fearing his own mortality and seeking a successor whom he could shape and divulge all of his industrial secrets; yet Wilder was barely on the threshold of middle-age at 38. Depp was similarly miscast (four years older than Wilder), by playing Wonka as an emotionally arrested man-child. Dahl's preference was to have been 53 year old Spike Milligan, an inspired choice. Ron Moody and Jon Pertwee were also contenders who turned it down, but reportedly, there was a push for Fred Astaire - who would have killed in the role, methinks, age appropriate & more than a mischievous streak going there. Joel Grey was also considered, but again, I think he was just too youthful at the time for the part. But we all dodged a bullet when the songwriter didn't get the part - Anthony Newley! Yeeesh.

  • June 9, 2011, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Jackanory

    by ragingfluff

    I remember both the Rik Mayall and the Tom Baker. There was also a sort of spookier rival to Jackanory on ITV (I think) called Dramarama (and I recall only one episode, a short, eerie drama about a girl and her invisible friend only the friend wasn't imaginary ... quite creepy really) They just don't make kids TV like that anymore, do they?

  • June 9, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Keenen Ivory Wayans is not dead

    by Chris Epps

    He's not dead. It was a rumor started by a fake CNN twitter post.

  • June 9, 2011, 4:22 p.m. CST

    It was a shot for shot remake!

    by jawaburger

    Just kidding! Semantics everyone. The movies were very similar in plot, and had many of the same scenes. I personally think that all of Burton's "remakes/new adaptations of the same story" are his worst movies. Planet of the Apes being the worst. And yes, they are remakes.

  • June 10, 2011, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Burton's version wasn't so bad, but Gene Wilder's Wonka TOWERS over Depp's.

    by WriteForTheEdit

    And I don't even remember the Veruca from Burton's version. This girl was much better.

  • June 10, 2011, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Another version of the book? Not a remake?

    by Darth Macchio

    Indeed! Finally! I've been griping about that on aicn for years with regard to "The thing from another world" and "The Thing" both based on "Who goes there?" by Campbell, with people saying Carpenter's work is a remake when, in the world where truth is actually important (if punitive in my usage), it's actually a completely different version of the original story. So if people, meaning more than 2 of them, actually agree that 'Willy Wonka' is not a remake of 'Charlie and the Chcolate Factory' and that both are different interpretations of the original novel, then "The Thing" is not a remake of "The Thing from another World" but, in actuality, a different version of the orignal novel! And I bet most people haven't read either book but yet still think one is a remake and the other is a new take on the original novel. Bollocks!!! Yay!! Hooray!!! The winner is me!!!!

Top Talkbacks