movie

Why I Prefer the Willy Wonka Remake (2005) More than the Original (1971)

Ever since Tim Burton’s adaptation of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” released in 2005, every single person had said that he or she liked the original movie, “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” from 1971 better. Everybody favored the old one—except me. I liked the reboot better.

Now I do respect everyone’s opinions and have to deal with being (so far) the only one who liked the remake better. I love a lot of unpopular movies. So here are the aspects of the reboot that make me enjoy it better than the original.

 

1: Willa Wonka and his sense of humor

Many people would disagree. I didn’t mind Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka. But when I saw how Johnny Depp played him, I admired his sense of humor, even if some of it crept certain people out.

2: The Oompa-Loompas’ songs

Unlike the first adaptation, the Oompa-Loompas sang different songs each time. I liked how each one differed, based on the child’s action, and I thought they sounded more exciting than the original movie’s “Oompa-Loompa Doo-bity Doo”.

3: Veruca was less spoiled—at least she seemed to be

In the 1971 film, she would shout, whine, and want pretty much everything she saw. In the 2005 movie, she seemed to control her emotions better. She seemed calmer, more positive, and overall, less spoiled. Of course, she wasn’t spoil-free. She did have some moments where she demands what she wants (like when she didn’t get the Golden Ticket in the beginning or when she wanted one of Mr. Wonka’s squirrels). Nevertheless, I liked the reboot’s Veruca better than the original’s version.

 

A word of wisdom: No matter how unpopular something is, if you love it, but feel lonely, there’s bound to be someone who enjoys it, too. You may never get to meet him or her. However, know that you’re never alone, regardless of how popular or unfavorable something is. Love how you enjoy it. Don’t worry about what others think of it or you. Accept who you are and what you like.

 

 

 

 

art

The Great Art Comparison: Traditional vs. Digital

Many of us have learned traditional art in school. It was required in elementary school and probably even middle school (at least for me, it was). However, depending on where you went to school, art may have become optional in high school. Digital art was probably either optional or not offered at the district I was part of.

Upon graduating high school, though, I learned Adobe Photoshop. I had fun with it. After a couple years, I will admit it spoiled me a bit. It also made traditional art harder. If I made a mistake in Photoshop, I would use one of the tools and not have to erase it and redraw it. It was the opposite for traditional media.

Now here are the differences between traditional and digital (besides the obvious):

Traditional:

IMG_1017

Above is an oil painting I did of a beach near my home. Traditional art is messier, requires clean-up, and mixing colors. You have to have what’s handy. The sky is not the limit. On the Brightside, it’s cheaper, doesn’t require technology or computer skills, and you can make textures more easily. Plus, holding that brush (or any other tool) and mixing your pigments feels good.

Digital

obsessive drawing 1

Above is a file I did in Photoshop. Digital art requires no carrying of materials, clean-up, and an infinite amount of colors. It’s also easier to fix mistakes by undoing, transporting, and much more. You do need computer skills, though. And programs, like Photoshop, can be expensive.

I would highly recommend learning traditional art first, if you haven’t since school. A lot of these techniques do apply to digital art. It’s also good to balance them out.

Of course, not all skills can be perfectly balanced (I often was either a PC or Mac person, but never really both evenly, until now), and art is no exception. But if you can balance traditional and digital art, it will be better.

If you only like traditional media, that’s cool, too.

movie

Be Our (or My) Guest… for this “Beauty & the Beast” Comparison: 1991 vs. 2017 Adaptations

Warning: contains spoilers***

 

Many of us remember or grew up on the 1991 cartoon of “Beauty and the Beast”. I used to watch it as a small child. I have watched it in recent years, as well.

Of course, I understood the story better more recently than as a little kid. A selfish prince is cursed with becoming a monstrous beast and his servants turning into furniture or props. The enchanted rose loses petals and the beast must love another, and she must love him back by the time the last petal falls. Then the spell will break. A provincial village girl named Belle is seen as strange by her community. Her father goes out on a trip somewhere, but gets lost. Despite the servants’ kindness, the beast imprisons him. Belle finds her father and is willing to take his place. Things move in another direction.

I stopped there because this post is not the synopsis for either adaptation. It is to compare and contrast them.

The 2017 live-action remake featured Emma Watson as Belle, after being known for playing Hermione in the “Harry Potter” movies. Her voice might not match or even sound similar to Paige O’Hara (who voiced Belle in the 1991 cartoon). I also noticed that she couldn’t sustain certain long notes in certain songs as Paige O’Hara did. But I still admired her portrayal of Belle.

The live-action remake also focused on plot holes that didn’t make it into the animated version. For example, there was a lot of emphasis on what happened to Belle’s mother (she died from a disease when Belle was a baby), as well as the Beast’s parents. One plot hole that was mentioned at the beginning explained why no one had wondered what had happened the prince. It was because the curse also wiped the outsider’s memories. While that covered the unanswered question, I felt that the narrator had forced it in instead of it sounding more natural.

Minor parts of the story were changed from the 1991 film, as well as songs. Some songs were added or changed up a bit. One wasn’t sung and that was the song, “Human Again”, when the servants saw the progress Belle and the Beast were making with their romance.

Because I expect differences from originals to remakes, I found both adaptations to be equally good. The cartoon was lighter in mood, compared the live-action reboot. The live-action remake had some changes, but I knew they would. Movie-makers usually don’t like to copy the original sources of either the films they’re remaking or books. They feel that they won’t succeed as much. Of course, many people like the original movies or book sources much better than the reboots or book-to-film adaptations.

Nevertheless, I would rate each version of “Beauty and the Beast” 5 out of 5 stars. I felt that they were too different for me to decide which was better or not as good.

 

movie

Why I Often Like the Movies More than the Books

book vs movie pic final

“The books are always better than the movies,” say everyone, but me. Of course, if I have neither read the book nor seen the movie, I would not have a say. But at least with, “Harry Potter”, “Lord of the Flies”, “Aladdin”, and “The Little Mermaid”, I like the movies a lot more.

Now all these opinions are my own, so everyone can still prefer the books over the movies. A lot of people get disappointed when something they liked in a book was cut from the film adaptation or changed. I totally understand that. With me, though, there are sometimes moments in books that I didn’t like, and if removed or altered, I appreciated. The “Harry Potter” franchise is actually one of the biggest of these. You can read that on another post, though.

“Lord of the Flies” was a required book when I attended high school. I found it boring, but the movie engaging. “Aladdin” and “The Little Mermaid”, like many other Disney movies, were based off fairytales. And the original stories were pretty R-rated. I don’t know if they were all told to children, but, of course, Disney had to drastically clean them up to make them appropriate for all ages. There are several moments from Disney classics that would not be acceptable today (i.e. a damsel-in-distress or a guy kissing a strange unconscious girl to wake her up). There are also several moments that aren’t historically accurate, and if they were, the movies would not have been rated G or PG.

Films usually have a time-limit to their productions as well as budgets. So that is why many exciting content, unfortunately, has to be cut. I actually am trying to get myself to read more. I enjoyed reading fiction for fun until fourth grade. I would only read fiction if forced to. Then right before eighth grade, I read the “Harry Potter” books. I would only read for fun if it was a “Harry Potter” novel.

Anyway, I tend to view book-to-film adaptations differently. There actually are rare occasions when I like something in the books more than the films. But, generally, the opposite is more like me.