bob_barron

Yea but it came out of nowhere and was out of character for him. I hope they include the part where someone designed something to tell if a candy bar had a golden ticket but it went after everything that was gold and had to be destroyed. Fuck, I love that book. My only complaint about Depp, is that Wonka should look much older and shorter. In the book, he was a very small man. I wonder if they will mention the grandparents didn't get out of bed for 20 years.

Is he the 9 year old man you're referring to?

Well Piper's insane. I think everyone knows that

Piper wasn't upset that he attacked Hogan, he was just upset at the way HBK did it since it was very cowardly.

Gabe was Heyman's right hand man in ECW for years though

Yea but Foley works indies all the time, just not ROH. WWE isn't letting him work ROH or anything, Foley does it on his own time.

Feel free to stop doing that.

I tend to agree to that , Bob, but with the recent direction of the company in some aspects, and the post-release interviews, there is a possibility, however slight that may be. Most, if not all, are still getting paid by the WWE for their 90 day clause. They could however, have not been released, take some bookings with ROH, and it would be eerily similar to Hardy's situation, even though he was legitimately released. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But none of them will work ROH until their 90 days are up anyway. I mean according to Meltzer, if this is a work then the people who were fired don't know.

Foley isn't under contract with WWE. He can do whatever he wants.

Foley and Cornette work indies all over the place. Matt Striker has only worked ROH twice, and was only used cause he was fired. Akio and possibly Haas are bound and maybe the Dudley Brothers. Other then that, none of them will be brought in except for a Straight Shooting.

None of the previous releases were works. I mean, all these people have been fired and are looking for work

Cheech will invade WWE and thus change the face of the industry forever. I mean really guys, have you seen how small the ROH guys are?

Book Wonka= A dick who won't eat cereal. Movie Wonka= A nice happy who gets snippy at the end for no reason

Hello time limit draw or double pin!

Wonka added singing, a whole new subplot, changed Charlie's family, the way Violet is offed, and the ending is slightly different. In the book, I don't remember Wonka being cranky at Charlie in the end for some of the stuff he did on the tour, that was totally added in. Much of the dialogue is different as well, although that's to be expected. If this makes money, I hope they don't touch Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. I love Roald Dahl, but that was an abortion of a book

1) Yes, since the original Wonka movie wasn't that great and strayed too far from the book. 2) Well they already said Violet gets offed the same way she did in the book, so good enough for me. 3) And yes, I care. I mean Wonka shouldn't be fucking singing. Charlie needs a father! This new movie shows us Loompa Land- so I'm sold.

And Y2Jerk brings the content with that post. The HBK collapse was another great worked-shoot, I agree.

Can you imagine what would've happened if Kane and Snitsky didn't brawl to the back?? It would've been out of control! Matt is so lucky!

Yea it was a shoot. Matt Hardy just happened to be wandering around backstage without anyone noticing, and then he attacked Edge. I bet Edge sure was shocked!

Its not like the 1971 film was an I, Robot-level adaptation. It got 95% of the book right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Uhhh no it didn't, and I already explained the differences between the book and the movie.

Yea, I remember being confused by the stuff with Slugworth since it's only mentioned in passing in the book as Wonka's employees sold all his secrets to them. I hope they mention Mr. Buckets job as screwing the toothpaste caps on toothpaste. Wonka is much more of an asshole in the book. I heard that snozberrys is actually a slang term for penis, though I don't know if that's the truth. In the book, couldn't you only take one parent? Or in the movie, did they only have one parent?

For the first 19 or 20 weeks of the year, the box office in 2005 was down v. what it was in 2004. Of course the spring of 04 had the Passion of the Christ become one of the top 10 films of all time, making the whole slump business quite misleading. I'm just happy we're getting a more faithful adaptation. Apparently in the movie, they actually show Wonka's visit to Loompa Land which isn't in Willy Wonka. The book also spent a lot of time focusing on Charlie beeing poor, but I doubt that will make it in the movie.

In the movie, Charlie doesn't have a father and he has a TV, which they didn't have in the book. Violet is offed differently, there's no singing by Wonka and there are more parents in the book. The book also shows the kids being led out with their new looks.

Fishywa needs to learn to use the quote button, and to get his head out of his ass. WWE was obviously referencing the beheadings with the piano wire and Daivari was supposed to be a suicide bomber. I mean, don't be so dense.

I do like that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is supposedly more faithful to the book then the original. That's why I really want to see it.