Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Open Spoilers)

[Sampiro]

@JohnT

Seems to me that by your definition the 1971 version is equally as pointless as the new one and equally as pointless as any other movie made from non-original material (Godfather, South Pacific, Bridge on the River Kwai, etc etc etc etc etc.)

I don’t know how you get that, but I’m sure it’s a cool process that would make the opening of the remake tame by comparison and, more importantly, was the best you could do.

I’m saying that there’s no real reason to make a remake of Godfather, South Pacific, Bridge on the River Kwai, etc etc etc etc if you’re going to mainly duplicate the original. In fact, South Pacific WAS remade a few years ago with Glenn Close and was a generally pointless endeavor since it was the same almost scene for scene as the original, which was done quite well to begin with.

Incidentally, in case you haven’t read the books above, the movies altered them all considerably. It was not exactly the same tale on the scren. Michener’s Tales of the South Pacific, for example, had far less developed choreography in the I’m in Love With a Wonderful Guy number.

[DoctorJ]

To those who have fond memories of the 1971 movie, I would ask this–have you watched it recently?

When I first heard about this movie, I asked why they were doing it when the Gene Wilder version was so good. I hadn’t seen that version since I was eight years old, so I got my hands on it about a year ago. I admit that Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Wonka was as good as I remembered it, and it’s pretty much impossible to compare to Depp’s. The kids themselves were not bad.

Most of it, though, was just…horrible. The music was awful, with the possible exception of the Oompa-Loompa songs, which I found more annoying than endearing. The visual effects are so dated that they look like they’re from a parody of a movie of the time rather than an actual such movie. The Oompa-Loompas looked ridiculous.

I asked a lot of people about it at the time, and the ones who talked most fondly of it were those who, like me, hadn’t seen it since they were eight years old. It just hasn’t held up well at all, and I think that makes it a prime target for another version.

(A lot of people here do appear to have seen the movie recently, and may disagree anyway.)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Sampiro

Of course one major flaw is that the 1971 version has held up so well. It’s still not dated, and therefore just doesn’t need a remake.

I’m saying that there’s no real reason to make a remake of Godfather, South Pacific, Bridge on the River Kwai, etc etc etc etc if you’re going to mainly duplicate the original.

These read to me like two different reasons for shooting down the remake. I personally don’t think the 1971 version has held up all that well, and I don’t think this movie was a duplication of the 1971 version in the slightest (in fact, I was surprised at the lack of homage to the earlier version–the only thing I caught that was an homage was the teeny little door to the candy-room, something that wasn’t in the book).

This was a much more faithful adaptation of the book than the original movie was, but I think there’s every reason to put a faithful adaptation of a book onto the screen: they’re different media, and allow for experiencing the story differently. Indeed, inasmuch as the original movie strayed pretty far from the book, I think there was a strong argument in favor of another adaptation.

Of course, there were significant differences from the book in Burton’s version, most notably Wonka on the shrink’s couch and etc. I think those could have been left out without hurting the movie too much.

Daniel

[Aeschines]

@VarlosZ

This is the right word for what you seem to be going for. Between this and the Coffee/Tea thread, you’re giving the impression that you really want to convince others that their personal preference is faulty. Maybe it’s just me, but there’s something in the tone of these posts that crosses the line from “this is why I prefer x” to “I prefer x, and this is why I’m right and you’re wrong”.

Just letting you know.

Noted, but it’s really all in fun, pard.

[Aeschines]

@RobuSensei

I’ve stated in previous threads that I didn’t like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, largely because it made some drastic changes from the original book (Slugworth, depressive Oompa Loompas, etc.). Now, I’ve found a new reason for my dislike: In the minds of many, the movie has supplanted the book as the “original” story!

You have a point, but that point I think rests on the book actually being better than the 1971 movie. I’m rereading the book right now, and I’m getting the impression that the story of 1971 movie is slightly better than that of the book. Plus, the music of the 1971 film, since it was great, added a new dimension to the story. But they’re still pretty close!

Now, the producers of the new movie did their best to make everyone aware that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was not based on the earlier film, and would go back to the book for its story.

Sure, that was spin in their best interest, since everyone knows that you can’t remake a masterpiece. (When I was a kid in the late 70s, there were two movies that every kid would run home at night to see, once each a year: The Wizard of Oz and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.)

[Jake]

@Bryan Ekers

viva at the concession stand: One Hershey’s bar, please.
Cashier: That’ll be eight dollars.
Lost wages, indeed.

Amen. The concession stands better stock up with chocolate!

[RobuSensei]

@Aeschines

You have a point, but that point I think rests on the book actually being better than the 1971 movie. I’m rereading the book right now, and I’m getting the impression that the story of 1971 movie is slightly better than that of the book. Plus, the music of the 1971 film, since it was great, added a new dimension to the story.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree here. I obviously don’t think that the story of Willy Wonka is better than the book. I definitely don’t agree with you about the music. The only song I enjoyed from that movie is “Pure Imagination,” and that unfortunately is overwhelmed by my dislike of the other songs, especially that repetitive, depressing, always-in-a-minor-key Oompa-Loompa song. The Oompa-Loompas are supposed to be happy and fun-loving, but in Willy Wonka they come off like pallbearers!

@Aeschines

Sure, that was spin in their best interest, since everyone knows that you can’t remake a masterpiece.

Or, from a different point of view, “you can’t polish a turd.”

[zweisamkeit]

I’m 23 years old. I have seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory over 100 times, at least*. My copy of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is 21 years old, been read countless times, dark yellow, tattered, has grease spots on the pages where I couldn’t bear to put it down during dinners and has 3/4s of a page accidentally torn out of it. Oh, and it has “Odd man” and “Odd dog” (with the ‘g’ backwards) written on the inside cover; apparently that had some deep meaning when I was around 5. I’m just trying to lay down my fan credientials, here.

That said…

I adored Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I think it belongs on my shelf of movies right next to Willy Wonka and that both of them are wonderful movies. They’re rather different from each other, which is what I love.

I don’t like to be confrontational at all, but Aeschines, it honestly sounds to me like you did not go into the movie with ‘medium expectations’. With how detailed your post is, it really sounds like you were going into the movie theatre expecting (possibly wanting) to hate it.

Many things that people here were annoyed at being left out were not in the book to begin with. Yes, Burton et al were going back to the book, not the 1971 movie, which Dahl himself didn’t like.

I read the book at 1.30am the night before going to see Charlie, so I could really judge how close it came to the book. So, Aeschines, where you ask:

But please name some concrete things that make this truer to the book.

Here is what I saw (some of which Garfield226 has already mentioned):

[ul]
[li]Mr. Bucket was in the movie[/li][li]Mr. Bucket worked at a toothpaste factory, screwing on caps[/li][li]The dinners they ate were exactly as in the book[/li][li]Charlie learns of Wonka’s factory when Grampa Joe tells him about it (although he doesn’t work for Wonka, like the movie has)[/li][li]Almost everything in Grampa Joe’s Wonka story is taken directly from the book (the ice cream that doesn’t melt, the bird eggs that melt and leave a chocolate bird on your tongue, and (I was SO excited they included it in the movie!) the story of Prince Pondicherry[/li][li]The candymakers who ripped off Wonka’s recipes were exactly correct, down to which name ripped off which product (Fickelgruber and the non-melting ice cream, etc)[/li][li]Charlie’s birthday chocolate bar is a WHIPPLE-SCRUMPTIOUS FUDGEMALLOW DELIGHT[/li][li]Mr. Bucket gets laid off from the toothpaste factory[/li][li]The two people who try to buy the golden ticket from Charlie have their dialogue taken exactly from the book[/li][li]They visit the factory on Feb 1st instead of October[/li][li]The factory was very warm because of his workers being used to a hot climate[/li][li]The Oompa Loompa backstory is exactly as the book says[/li][li]Wonka gave Charlie and Grampa Joe some chocolate from the river (during the boat ride) because they look starved[/li][li]The Whipping Cream room seen on the boat ride[/li][li]The hair toffee that grows far too much hair[/li][li]The squirrel room[/li][li]They used the Great Glass Elevator for traveling around before Mike Teavee gets zapped[/li][li]The fudge mountain seen during the elevator ride[/li][li]Wonka saying that breakfast cereal is made of the curly wooden shavings from pencils[/li][li]The songs the Oompa Loompas sang were the lyrics written in the book[/li][li]When Wonka, Charlie and Grampa Joe are flying in the elevator, they see the other children leaving the factory; all are shown just as Dahl described them (although Violet was just described as “healhier”, not more flexible)[/li][/ul]

• [sub]There was a time when I was about 8 where my mom would pick me up from school and the second I got home, I would watch our copy of Willy Wonka all the way through, every day. This went on for over a month. I’m surprised she didn’t kill me.[/sub]

[StGermain]

I thought the art direction in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was very cool, but I just felt the movie had no heart. I remember the look of sadness and love on Gene Wilder’s face when he put his hand over the Everlasting Gobstobber and turns to Charlie. I felt no real emotion in this new movie. Some flash, some spiffy dialogue, but no depth. That’s what I miss.

And it’s weird, because I’m normally a big Johnny Depp fan, but he didn’t do anything for me in this movie. I found his portrayal one-dimensional and his voice anoying Captain Jack Sparrow had more depth. I thought the kid that played Charlie did well, as well as Mike Teevee and his dad. And you know what? I’ve been watching Sports Kids Moms and Dad on Bravo and I’ve seen Violet Beauregaurd in the guise of a seven year old cheerleader and her mother.

StG

[Jonathan_Chance]

@JohnT

I’ve always wondered why the kids are being punished for their parents sins. So Veruca is a spoiled little brat? It’s not as if she could’ve spoiled herself. Mike watched too much TV? Dad could’ve turned the damned thing off. Violet is hypercompetitive? She’s just emulating her mother, a very kid thing to do. And Augustus is fat? Wow… how horrible. :rolleyes:

But don’t you get it? This is what the book and the movie are about. The kids, while acting as foils for the story, actually show the errors that parents are prone to. Dahl wasn’t writing a cautionary tale for kids but rather for the parents that would read it.

I’m sitting in the theater with my 5 year old yesterday and I thinking ‘this is about the parents making mistakes and the kids paying for it not about the kids getting their just desserts (ha!)’.

And that’s just it. The morality play here at work is the responsibility of child-rearing. We get:

Don’t spoil your kids (Veruca Salt).
Don’t ignore your kids (Mike Teevee).
Don’t indulge your kids (Augustus Gloop).
Don’t make your kids be you (Violet Beauregard).

The sin in Violet isn’t that she’s hypercompetitive but rather that her mother has made her a copy of herself.

The sin in Mike isn’t that he’s a hostile disconnected asshole but that his parents disinterest in him has him feeling rejected.

The sin in Veruca isn’t that she’s spoiled and impatient but rather than her father indulges her every whim as she has it.

The sin in Augustus isn’t that he’s fat and greedy but rather that his parents think it’s amusing that he is.

THAT’S what Dahl was getting at. And I think it’s a point missed in large by the world reading the book and seeing either movie.

Think of it as being not about the kids but about the kids suffering because their parents are poor at being parents. Charlie, certainly fated to play the ‘poor but honest’ role, is there not to ‘win’ as such but to demonstrate that if parents pay attention to their children and provide them with optimism, courage, strength and love even the most downtrodden, which is to say the one with the most reason to go wrong, can be courageous, centered, and happy.

Again, it’s not about the kids. The kids are irrelevant except for how they demonstrate the failures of the parents.

[mobo85]

Hometowns of the children, according to the film:
Augustus Gloop: Dusseldorf, Germany
Violet Beauregarde: Atlanta, Georgia
Veruca Salt: Buckinghamshire, England
Mike Teevee: Denver, Colorado
Charlie Bucket: unnamed city (presumably in England), next door to Mr. Wonka’s factory
It was claimed originally that the fifth golden ticket was found in Russia, but it was later discovered to be a forgery.

[QUOTE=AeschinesAs others have noted, she doesn’t do anything wrong in the gum incident, either. She’s clearly offered the gum and has no reason to suspect that it will harm her.[/QUOTE]

While she’s chewing the gum, Wonka keeps telling her “spit it out,” but she doesn’t listen. She wants to be the first person in the world to eat a gum meal. She wouldn’t give up- as she told Charlie when asked why she kept chewing the same piece of gum instead of eating a new one, “Because then I wouldn’t be a champion. I’d be a loser- like you.” Despite the warnings, she just wants to be the best, which leads to her downfall.

Jonathan Chance, I think your hypothesis is really interesting. Now that I think about it, “don’t make mistakes when it comes to raising your kids” is a good moral of the story. In fact, it makes even more sense when paired with the new subplot involving Wonka’s dad. All Willy Wonka wanted in life was candy, but his dentist father was so obsessed with clean teeth, he didn’t get a single bite. So he ran away and founded a chocolate factory…but deep down, he regrets betraying his dad. Family is important, but don’t be so strict- or loose- with your child-rearing. What an interesting lesson.

[don_Jaime]

Wait a minute. For all those complaining that Willy Wonka didn’t match the book: didn’t Dahl write, or at least co-write, the screenplay for that? If all the changes were vetted by him, then you can’t complain. Heck, Douglas Adams wrote about eight million versions of the Hitchhiker’s Guide, and no one carps about that.

[Liz]

@Jonathan Chance

Think of it as being not about the kids but about the kids suffering because their parents are poor at being parents. Charlie, certainly fated to play the ‘poor but honest’ role, is there not to ‘win’ as such but to demonstrate that if parents pay attention to their children and provide them with optimism, courage, strength and love even the most downtrodden, which is to say the one with the most reason to go wrong, can be courageous, centered, and happy.

Again, it’s not about the kids. The kids are irrelevant except for how they demonstrate the failures of the parents.

Precisely – and note the Oompa Loompa’s songs in the book:

@Roald Dahl

But now, my dears, we think you might
Be wondering–is it really right
That every single bit of blame
And all the scolding and the shame
Should fall upon Veruca Salt?
Is she the only one at fault?
For though she’s spoiled, and dreadfully so,
A girl can’t spoil herself, you know.
Who spoiled her, then? Ah, who indeed?
Who pandered to her every need?
Who turned her into such a brat?
Who are the culprits? Who did that?
Alas! You needen’t look so far
To find out who these sinners are.
They are (and this is very sad)
Her loving parents, MUM and DAD.
And that is why we’re glad they fell
Into the garbage chute as well."

and

@Roald Dahl

The most important thing we’ve learned,
So far as children are concerned,
Is never, NEVER, NEVER let
Them near your television set–
Or better still, just don’t install
The idiotic thing at all.
In almost every house we’ve been,
We’ve watched them gaping at the screen.
They loll and slop and lounge about,
And stare until their eyes pop out.
(Last week in someone’s place we saw
A dozen eyeballs on the floor.)
They sit and stare and stare and sit
Until they’re hypnotised by it,
Until they’re absolutely drunk
With all the shocking ghastly junk.
Oh yes, we know it keeps them still,
They don’t climb out the window sill,
They never fight or kick or punch,
They leave you free to cook the lunch
And wash the dishes in the sink–
But did you ever stop to think,
To wonder just exactly what
This does to your beloved tot?

It’s a word of warning for parents, illustrating what ill fates your children can befall when raised in the manner of Veruca & Co.

As for the new film, I saw it today and thought it was wonderful. While I always viewed Gene’s Wonka as an eccentric, bitter man with a warm heart, Depp played him as thoroughly deranged. The candy boat road was magnificent, though I wish they would have kept the original recitation by Wonka. “…and they are showing no signs that they are slooooowing…” It would have fit the creepy atmosphere of the factory perfectly.

All in all, I thought Burton did a beautiful job of directing and Depp was very good as Wonka. The children, I thought, were much better than the originals.

[aside]

Did anyone else have the trailer for The Corpse Bride? As a big fan of Nightmare Before Christmas, I can’t wait!

[/aside]

[Indyellen]

@don Jaime

Wait a minute. For all those complaining that Willy Wonka didn’t match the book: didn’t Dahl write, or at least co-write, the screenplay for that? If all the changes were vetted by him, then you can’t complain. Heck, Douglas Adams wrote about eight million versions of the Hitchhiker’s Guide, and no one carps about that.

Dahl wrote the book and the original script. However, David Seltzer rewrote most of the script & changed it SUBSTANTIALLY from the book/original script, which led to:

@IMDB

Roald Dahl was reportedly so angry with the treatment of his book (mainly stemming from the massive rewrite by David Seltzer) that he refused permission for the book’s sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, to be filmed. Seltzer had an idea for a new sequel, but legal issues meant that it never got off the ground.

(Bolding mine)

Cite.

[mobo85]

@chatelaine

Did anyone else have the trailer for The Corpse Bride?

I think it’s attached to the film.

[Driver8]

@mobo85

Charlie Bucket: unnamed city (presumably in England), next door to Mr. Wonka’s factory

I’m curious as to what other people think about this.

My impression is that Burton made it intentionally ambigious. Charlie finds paper currency that is not American (I could swear it was “10 Guineas”, whatever that is) but the grandfather has what looks like a quarter. The licence plates on the trucks and cars look to be the standard North American shape and size, but we never really get a good look. All the cities for the other kids are named, but not Charlie’s (and subsequently, not the city the actual factory is in).

I may be projecting, but I think he was deliberately inconsistent so no-one could hold it to a specific place. If so, I approve, it made the whole factory seem even more mysterious.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@don Jaime

Wait a minute. For all those complaining that Willy Wonka didn’t match the book: didn’t Dahl write, or at least co-write, the screenplay for that? If all the changes were vetted by him, then you can’t complain. Heck, Douglas Adams wrote about eight million versions of the Hitchhiker’s Guide, and no one carps about that.

@Indyellen

Dahl wrote the book and the original script. However, David Seltzer rewrote most of the script & changed it SUBSTANTIALLY from the book/original script, which led to:

@IMDB

Roald Dahl was reportedly so angry with the treatment of his book (mainly stemming from the massive rewrite by David Seltzer) that he refused permission for the book’s sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, to be filmed. Seltzer had an idea for a new sequel, but legal issues meant that it never got off the ground.

Yeah, I’ve read that on IMDB, too. It conflicts with what Seltzer says in the documentary on the WW&tCF DVD ("Pure Imagination: The Story of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory). In an interview, DS says that he was brought in to write the transitionals from the music scenes to the story scenes. Roald Dahl had completed a script which did not include the musical numbers, but his script was not yet complete when the musical numbers were already being filmed. Seltzer was brought in to help make the transitions from song and dance numbers back to the story. I variously hear that he changed 30% or that he changed everything, but according to the account of David Seltzer, this isn’t the case.

He did write the lines that WW has in the elevator:

WW: And don’t forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he always wanted…
CB: What happened?
WW: He lived happily ever after, to the end of his days!

[Dung_Beetle]

@Snowboarder Bo

He did write the lines that WW has in the elevator:

WW: And don’t forget what happened to the man who suddenly got everything he always wanted…
CB: What happened?
WW: He lived happily ever after, to the end of his days!

I love that scene, how Gene Wilder is so fatherly and kind. It makes my eyes tear up just reading that.

I haven’t seen the new one yet, but I’m really looking forward to it despite Depp. If zweisamkeit says it works, that’s good enough for me!

[vivalostwages]

@chatelaine

Precisely – and note the Oompa Loompa’s songs in the book:
and
It’s a word of warning for parents, illustrating what ill fates your children can befall when raised in the manner of Veruca & Co.

As for the new film, I saw it today and thought it was wonderful. While I always viewed Gene’s Wonka as an eccentric, bitter man with a warm heart, Depp played him as thoroughly deranged. The candy boat road was magnificent, though I wish they would have kept the original recitation by Wonka. “…and they are showing no signs that they are slooooowing…” It would have fit the creepy atmosphere of the factory perfectly.

All in all, I thought Burton did a beautiful job of directing and Depp was very good as Wonka. The children, I thought, were much better than the originals.

[aside]

Did anyone else have the trailer for The Corpse Bride? As a big fan of Nightmare Before Christmas, I can’t wait!

[/aside]

Just saw it today, munching chocolate all the while, and really liked it. Yes, the trailer for CB was shown.

I enjoyed Depp’s Wonka, loved the Bucket house, thought the child actors were quite good, was amazed by the factory visuals and sets, didn’t care for a couple of the Oompa Loompa songs but didn’t mind the others.

[Miller]

@Aeschines

Nothing else rings true. Even the opening was for me an immediate red flag and a disappointment: the robot arms packaging candy. Whoever conceived this obviously has no knowledge of automation or what the inside of factories look like. I toured a very modern popcorn packing plant recently, and the fact of the matter is that reality is more interesting than these creepy alien hands touching the chocolate–plus it has the benefit of being real.

So, you found the robot arms in the credit sequence unbelievable… but you had no problem with the chocolate waterfall?

[Wonka]You’re wierd![/Wonka]