Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Friday October 21 2016, @06:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the Oompa-Loompa-Reunion dept.

After helping build the "Harry Potter" franchise and rebooting it with "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them," producer David Heyman and Warner Bros. are re-teaming to revive another classic character.

Sources tell Variety that Warner Bros. has acquired the rights to the "Willy Wonka" IP from the Roald Dahl Estate and is planning a new movie centered around the eccentric character.

Heyman will produce with Michael Siegel, who is the manager of the Dahl Estate. Kevin McCormick is exec producing. "The Secret Life of Pets" scribe Simon Rich is penning the script. Courtenay Valenti is overseeing the project for the studio.

Sources reveal that the film will not be an origin tale, but a standalone movie focused on Wonka and his early adventures. It's unknown who from the original book series, other than Wonka, will be involved in the project. If the reboot is a hit, it seems likely that characters like Charlie could be seen in future installments of a possible franchise.

https://variety.com/2016/film/news/willy-wonka-new-movie-david-heyman-warner-bros-1201894143/

Gene Wilder, who not only portrayed Willy Wonka in the 1971 film “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”, but also starred in “The Producers,” “Blazing Saddles,” “Young Frankenstein,” and “Stir Crazy,” passed away on August 29 of complications from Alzheimer’s disease. He was 83.

https://archive.fo/zuFUY
https://web.archive.org/web/20161020104522/https://variety.com/2016/film/news/willy-wonka-new-movie-david-heyman-warner-bros-1201894143/


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @06:54AM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Friday October 21 2016, @06:54AM (#417137)

    No no no no no no no no no no no no no no! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/ [nooooooooooooooo.com]

    Just no.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @07:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @07:36AM (#417150)

      No! (Score:3, Informative)

      Shitposting is Informative now? Cool, let me try.

      Fuck YOu! Fuckyou! Fuck! YOU!! Fuck you! Fuck yoou!

      FUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

      BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITCCCCCCHHH CCCCUUUUNNNNNTTTTTTTTT

      MOOOOOOTTTTTTTHHHHHHHEEEEEEERRRRRFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEERRRRRRR

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by MadTinfoilHatter on Friday October 21 2016, @01:58PM

        by MadTinfoilHatter (4635) on Friday October 21 2016, @01:58PM (#417239)

        Shitposting is Informative now?

        I believe those mods were for his sig.

        • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday October 21 2016, @08:05PM

          by dyingtolive (952) on Friday October 21 2016, @08:05PM (#417399)

          It's certainly possible. I dunno if it was shitposting as much as shitfacedposting. Got trashed after a concert last night and decided to keep it going when I got home.

          Wouldn't ever change it though. Someone might take me seriously.

          --
          Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @06:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @06:37PM (#417358)

      Gene Wilder believed the Tim Burton one was an insult.
      http://variety.com/2016/film/news/gene-wilder-last-interview-1201847906/ [variety.com]

      • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday October 21 2016, @11:37PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday October 21 2016, @11:37PM (#417463) Homepage

        Wait, there was a Tim Burton one? Jesus Christ, Hollywood^W The Jews really have run out of fucking ideas.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @07:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @07:15AM (#417141)

    Willy vote Hillary!

    Will ye vote Hillary or are you still sexist?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @02:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @02:39PM (#417265)

      I'm sexist. I'm voting for Dr. Stein.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @06:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @06:15PM (#417350)

        Doctor Frankenstein, I presume.

  • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Friday October 21 2016, @09:24AM

    by Rivenaleem (3400) on Friday October 21 2016, @09:24AM (#417168)

    Summary needs correcting. It seems that this is not a remake of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" but is original work based on the character of Wonka, in other settings. Before he became a recluse in the factory, and after Charlie wins the competition, he had many other adventures.

    • (Score: 2) by martyb on Friday October 21 2016, @12:40PM

      by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 21 2016, @12:40PM (#417209) Journal

      Summary needs correcting. It seems that this is not a remake of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" but is original work based on the character of Wonka, in other settings. Before he became a recluse in the factory, and after Charlie wins the competition, he had many other adventures.

      I reread the summary (and made some minor formatting changes and added an obit) but am failing to see what else needs to be changed. Oh wait, I see that the word "origin" (which was in the original version I saved) was changed to "original" -- I reverted that change.

      Other than that, nowhere in the summary do I see it saying that it is a "remake". What am I missing?

      --
      Wit is intellect, dancing.
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday October 21 2016, @01:53PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday October 21 2016, @01:53PM (#417234)

        In the same sentence that's talking about "rebooting the Harry Potter franchise," the word "revive" is used for Willy Wonka. Understandable assumption if you ask me. Plus those Hollywood types love rebooting stuff every chance they get.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by martyb on Friday October 21 2016, @03:09PM

          by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 21 2016, @03:09PM (#417275) Journal

          From the GP comment:

          It seems that this is not a remake of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" but is original work based on the character of Wonka, in other settings.

          From the parent comment:

          In the same sentence that's talking about "rebooting the Harry Potter franchise," the word "revive" is used for Willy Wonka. Understandable assumption if you ask me. Plus those Hollywood types love rebooting stuff every chance they get.

          From my perspective, the 2005 film "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (with Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka) was a remake of the 1971 film "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" (with Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka.) Both films are adaptations of the 1964 novel Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. Though possibly differing somewhat in the particulars (e.g. the items sampled by the children), both have children of the same name, follow the same story line of winning a tour of the secretive factory, facing confectionery temptations, and only one surviving the test who becomes the new owner of the factory.

          On the other hand, a reboot means to me that the work starts at an early/earlier point in the story line, and changes something about the canonical story.

          On the gripping hand, to revive the Willy Wonka character encompasses many possibilities. It could be a remake, with a different person cast as Willy Wonka, or it could be an entirely different story with Willy Wonka having some sort of role. (This would be in contrast to, say reviving the character of Charlie.)

          I think we are both in agreement that the proposed work is likely not a remake. The text from Variety may not be as clearly written as it might have been, but what they wrote, they wrote; we just quoted it.

          I personally preferred the original film adaptation as the remake seemed more sinister and dark to me; I am not interested in yet another remake. Should this project proceed to fruition, I am looking forward to seeing more details revealed along the way.

          --
          Wit is intellect, dancing.
      • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Monday October 24 2016, @10:28AM

        by Rivenaleem (3400) on Monday October 24 2016, @10:28AM (#418092)

        If it is not "original" then it implies a remake. If it is not an origin story, then it can be either a remake or some other story with Willie as the main character. That was all.

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday October 21 2016, @10:28AM

    by Bot (3902) on Friday October 21 2016, @10:28AM (#417183) Journal

    caption:
    oh so you are planning a new willy wonka film?
    i am sure that with warner's help you will unearth many facets of his complex personality.

    --
    Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 21 2016, @12:16PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday October 21 2016, @12:16PM (#417201) Journal

    There already is a sequel that Roald Dahl actually wrote called "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator," but i guess it would be too scary for the kiddies?

    I wonder what Disney has planned for poor Willy Wonka. Early gender confusion? What other part of the Narrative are they gonna push, that we're just not getting? Or will it be a straight up 90 minutes infomercial for merch with QR code links straight to the shopping page hovering in the corner?

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @02:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @02:44PM (#417267)

      Better watch out for those Vermicious Knids!

      Have some transgender tea?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @04:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @04:06PM (#417294)

        Trump is playing an Umpa Lumpa.

  • (Score: 2) by snufu on Friday October 21 2016, @06:01PM

    by snufu (5855) on Friday October 21 2016, @06:01PM (#417345)

    Inferior Remake Factory

    • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday October 21 2016, @09:46PM

      by acid andy (1683) on Friday October 21 2016, @09:46PM (#417438) Homepage Journal

      -1 Redundant.

      Practically all remakes are inferior!

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @06:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21 2016, @06:21PM (#417352)

    ...at the Google campus