Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Lost in Adaptation ~ The Dom
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- Charlie made it through the factory but then got lost in adaptation and The Dom splits time and space in order to bring you both versions of the film.
Decided to combine the episodes for Channel Awesome. TH-cam apparently promotes longer videos more.
Support the show on Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Dom on Facebook: www.facebook.c...
Dom on Twitter: / dominic__noble
Buy Lost in Adaptation Teeshirts: www.teepublic....
Contact me: lostinadaptationrequests@gmail.com
Intro music by: / djilneige
Royalty Free Music: incompetech.com/
Mail stuff to Dom:
225 Simi Village Dr
PO Box 941750
Simi Valley, CA
93094
..."Kid, he's giving away free samples, just go inside"
I died, that was brilliant
Me too!!
My favorite line from the remake: "This is the puppet hospital and burns unit. It's relatively new."
NOT A REMAKE. *2005 film
Mairead Malesco yes it is. its much different from the old one but it still counts as a remake. even if the movies have different names.
It’s an alternate adaptation of the same source material and is more faithful to the source material.
I prefer the part where he says “that is cannibalism, and it is frowned apon in many societies”
@@saklee1777 one thing I don’t get is why would they turn the Jawbreaker (or gobstopper for you fancy Europeans out there), into an ugly misshaped Candy? Clearly the Wonka version wasn’t good with the design compared to the Charlie version.
Actually Burton’s inclusion of Wonka’s father was encourage by Dahl’s wife. Burton was extremely careful to be as close to Dahl’s vision as possible and didn’t do anything without Dahl’s family’s blessing.
So Dahl (and his wife) don't even understand the story and morals of his own work? Well, that's unfortunate.
@Charles12 this might be the dumbest comment on this whole website.
Burton was also deeply affected by the death of both his parents (2000 for his dad and 2002 for his mom), which is how and why he ended up directing Big Fish (2003). It's no surprise that he would decide to make an adaptation Dahl's family approved of since he himself wasn't thrilled about the original. I don't quite think the movie was ever meant to be more than that, and by looking at it through that lens, general audience approval wasn't relevant. I honestly hated both movies because I think Dahl wanted to endgame kids through his gross books, but both movies deserve recognition for being exactly what they are. Much love! 🙏 ❤
@@MelancholyRequiemSpeak for yourself and your condescending attitude. Us kids LOVED Dahl's books because they spoke the langauge of kids. Kids are (in general) violent little weirdos and Dahl did not romanticize them like most people do. He got us.
@@Charles12So, you think you understand the message of a story better than the person who wrote it, uh?
Talk about entitlement and arrogance.
Surprisingly, Felicity Dahl (Roald Dahl's wife) was an executive producer for the 2005 film. In many behind-the-scenes moments, she talks about how many of the changes she deemed necessary to convey her late husband's true intentions of the book. If the wife of the dude who wrote the book thinks the changes needed to happen, who are we to argue xD
@@mastaaceexclusive how does that even remotely apply to my comment 2 years later lol
i'm not the biggest fan of felicity. roald put a ban on any adaptation of james and the giant peach, and after his death, felicity promptly greenlit an adaptation. also she completely missed the mark with this film
@@secretblue0290 thank you for providing yet another example of why Felicity is a better judge for what should be included. Without her, no James and the Giant Peach movie?? She's even better than I thought, thank you again
Edit: still two years later, y'all necroposting like crazy lol
@@tippydaug525 bro what the hell? she went against her recently deceased husband's wishes to get that movie made. HOW ABOUT WE RESPECT THE MAN'S WISHES, ESPECIALLY AFTER HIS DEATH
@@secretblue0290 yea nah I'm not engaging in random caps spam arguments with keyboard warriors. have a nice life bud :)
"Even fruit can be fatal" this is a reminder that in the book version of james and the giant peach aunt sponge and spiker are killed by the peach because it rolls over them
Later on, the same peach crashes through the Wonka chocolate factory.
@@Narbaculus in the same chapter
@@Narbaculusthe jatgp-catcf connected universe?!?!
@@DinoRicky The chocolate factory the peach rolled through was nameless at the time. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was released three years later and later illustrations confirmed it as Wonka's factory. So it is now, but it wasn't when it was written because it didn't exist yet.
"It could have been a hilarious scene, and I wish they had put it in the film."
"It was an incredibly stupid and kind of racist scene, I wish they had left it out of the film."
lol
I see conflicting messages there, dom.
i think what he was referring to as 'racist' was when the chocolate fell on the middle of the indian prince's forehead, thus mimicking the bindi (sorry if that is the wrong term)
Yllasville1110 Could be, but it also implies the Indian prince is very stupid (some might take that to apply to all Indians, as idiotic as that assumption might be), and he possibly meant the portrayal of the prince in general was racist. I don't really know, but I felt the statement may have applied to the scene as a whole.
I feel racism was inserted here... because I didn't see anything racist about it. You'd have to look for I'm guessing the chocolate drop as the dot on some Indian's foreheads and just THINK that as racist to really see this scene as racist - I enjoyed the scene myself.
+ramirezthesilvite I think that's kinda just your grievance, showing one member of a race being stupid doesn't make anyone think that the entire race is stupid, that just feels like a personal thing for you.
Wonka hobbling slowly and unsteadilly out of the factory leaning heavily on his cane, then dropping suddenly and gracefully into a somersault during his first appearance in the film, was all a condition of playing the part imposed by Gene Wilder himself. Wilder's reasoning that he wanted to establish the character's sense of mischief early on so that from there on, you would never know if you could trust him or not.
And that is why Wilder was a better Wonka than Dahl or Depp's.
Fun fact about that scene, the children in the scene had no idea it was coming, so when Wilder comes out and the kids look like they feel really bad for him, that was the genuine reaction of the actors.
Gene was such a comedic genius. He also made up the creepy ditty in the tunnel scene (the disturbing imagery was to exacerbate the reactions of the actors)
And Dahl hated that.
@@Emisop good lol f Dahl
"I wish they put in the chocolate prince scene!"
"I wish they took that scene out"
Grant Witherspoon Ikr...choose One xD
Grant Witherspoon It's a joke about how, if you do certain types of scene wrong - namely these jokey and/or tangential ones - it can actually be worse than leaving it out. If that type of scene is only half as good as its book counterpart, it's like half a kitten. It's not half as cute as a kitten, it's a gory mess.
I think he meant the scene with the chocolate dripping the spot on his for head... That has some cultural undertones
I would have preferred it if there we're glimpses of the story when it was told rather than an entire freaking scene.
@@sarahgent2674 josie the half-cat would like to have a word with you
I loved the way the book describes how Charlie makes a chocolate bar last for weeks by putting it in a special box and sometimes just staring at it, imagining the taste, then putting it away again.
That kind of hits home harder about the abject poverty he was living in more than anything else because you can really _feel_ that longing for luxury.
I’d like to add that while book Wonka was filled with enthusiasm and therefore nothing like Depp’s portrayal, he was certainly creepy and unsettling. Book Wonka is batshit insane. He’s TOO enthusiastic, laughs hysterically when the kids get hurt, and is deserved as enjoying it a lot more than everyone else. There’s a scene where all the parents rattle off different ways to call him crazy because he is. He’s insane and it’s actually really unsettling.
So while Depp’s portrayal of the character isn’t the same at all, they both radiate unsettling and creepy energies
idk i think johnny’s wonka is pretty insane too. but he’s also very socially akward with less enthusiasm.
Sadly, the author Hated the first movie, and his wife believed he would love the second adaptation because it was more faithful to the material.
I personally love both actors. They are some of my favorite zany character experts. And, yes, both Willy Wonkas are completely deranged, they just show it in a different way. And damn I love both of these THECNICOLOR FREAKS (digitally color corrected would be more correct for the 2000s one, but eh, details).
in that case, i'd certainly say the original was superior. in my opinion, gene wilder brought the film to new heights. his manic presence in the factory is so overlooked by watchers. for some reason, people say the remake was darker than the original. this is absolutely untrue. wilder's expressive and unpredictable nature turns him into a kind of superior force in the factory. i can't articulate exactly what it was, but by god did gene lift the movie to being one of my favorites of all time.
to be honest i love the second movie, the differences added by burton to make everything slightly disturbing (while simply could be just him burtoning up everything) really made sense to me for the book, it felt like an extension of the self awareness added in the movies, and also reflects how disturbing roald dahl's books generally are when you think about it. like the socially awkward Willy Wonka really makes sense considering he is a genius obsessed with candy and has had no human interaction for however many years.
not to mention the soundtrack slaps (all hail danny elfman)
The slavery undertones weren't coincidental. Some illustrations showed them as pigmey-like Africans. Nothing like the movie. In fact, they may have changed it to avoid racist complaints.
Yep. Later editions changed them to be pale-skinned characters and Loompaland became an indeterminate fictional location. Dahl himself made the changes after being successfully convinced that the original text was pretty racist (which actually kind of surprises me, given Dahl's general attitudes toward these things).
Dude, he changed it specifically because of racist complaints.
Say wasn't Roald Dahl anti-Semitic?
And they were naked too. Bet you'd like to see short naked african men doing slavery work in a children's film. Oh wait....
Christopher lee: sith, lord, evil wizard and a dentist.
john pidgeon All the worst things ever.
And Dracula
And a Werewolf hunter. Specially the flashy ones.
And a man with a golden gun
Vampire
One of the things that Burton did in adapting the book that I think is really cool is how he translated the Oompa-Loompas singing in the book to film by basically crafting songs out of the lyrics given, but then going the extra mile by where each of the songs is a different genre of pop music from the 20th century.
Danny Elfman originally planned to write the songs all with the same tune since he thought that was how they were meant to be like in the original film, but Burton said no. The original version of Veruca’s song with Augustus’ tune is available on TH-cam
I’m honestly glad they changed it, while the song is pretty catchy, if they went with the idea to use Augustus’ tune with different lyrics, it would not have fit the tone of the film at all
There's an interesting bit of trivia you missed, which explains some of the things here. Roald Dahl hated the first movie, in particular the choice of Gene Wilder as Wonka. Thus he banned the sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, from ever being made into a film. That meant Tim Burton had to change the ending to close up the sequel hooks in the original.
That's right. I heard Dahl took his dislike to Wilder after Wilder added in the part in his initial intro to the film, where, as Wonka, he limped up to the gates and then appeared to fall but, at the last minute, turned it into a forward roll. Wilder stated that he did it to show right from the start that Wonka was a trickster who could never be entirely trusted, and even went as far as to say he would only accept the role if that change was written into the final movie. Of course the film company wanted him so badly for that part they caved in, but Dahl vehemently disagreed with Wilder's interpretation of Wonka, and that's where the hate came from.
I can't remember if Dahl had already passed when Burton made his version; I wonder how he would have felt about his interpretation of Wonka?
Maerahn
Actually Dahl’s wife was a co-producer. What she said was that Dahl would have loved the new movie and would have gotten along with burton quiet well. Keep in mind that’s his wife saying that, but still.
I loved "Great Glass Elevator" as a kid, more than the original book; especially the satirical bits about the US President and Space Hotel USA that play almost as "Dr. Strangelove" for kiddies... but in hindsight, there are a bunch of wacky-foreign-accent gags in there that probably would have aged extremely poorly unless they were omitted from any adaptation. It might have been a bullet dodged.
(I remember reading the book for my daughter at bedtime, and unconsciously drifting into performing President Lancelot R. Gilligrass as Peter Sellers' President Merkin Muffley from "Dr. Strangelove." But at one point Dahl describes him as having a raspy voice--probably he's really more a parody of Nixon.)
It's more racist than the first book...
"every time you wing you get the wong number".
I find it interesting how his biggest complaint about the Burton version was actually in part a contribution by Dahl's wife who was an executive producer for the film.
Did anyone else get the idea that Charlie's dad works at a toothpaste factory?
And instead of following in his dad's footsteps, Charlie decides to work in a chocolate factory.
There's symbolism in there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can pick it out
+THEGREATMAX Yeah, I noticed that part.
Something about the difference between dental hygiene and the sugar in chocolate, which is bad for teeth?
count coventry and think about wanka and his dad pretty similar
@@killerfoxraspberryplays8903 😂
@@killerfoxraspberryplays8903 P.s. what you typed means something different to us Brits...
It's refreshing to see someone who remembers the book and doesn't immediately look to the original adaptation as the definitive version of the story.
Yeah, at least him
I still don't see how Violet 'learned her lesson'. She basically just got superpowers. Oh, and she turned blue, which is _awesome_.
Being squeezed would probably hurt though!
NotTheSmoooze I think the lesson she learned was to be different than her mom. When you first see them, she is just a mini version of her mom. Turning blue made mom disappointed, but violet happy. It's safe to say that she will never be like her mom after all.
Also, remember that she had to go back to school after turning blue. Imagine that.
She's a freak of nature now. They all are.
How are Augustus and Veruca freaks? Those two got dirty and maybe crapped their pants. That's all.
~Lunara
“They would need to actually train thousands of squirrels” well they actually did that for some shoots in that scene in the remake so...
Actually, they didn't, the entire squirrel squadron in the nut room are all CGI, even the ones in the closeups.
Now what they DID do was hire a handful of squirrels and squirrel handlers and film them so as to get the proper reference for the scene: so things like speed, reflections, saturation, and motion.
@@shelbyherring92 Ohhhh! Yeah that makes much more sense
@@shelbyherring92 And even if they had, it wouldn't have been thousands. If there were any real squirrels in that scene, it would have only been one or two. Admittedly none of them look entirely real. Squirrels I've seen all look fatter and fluffier. I should note I've only seen them around in British autumns in parks, and once tearing up a tree in winter.
@@strawberrysoulforever8336 Grey squirrels are generally fatter and fluffier than red squirrels. The area I live in has both; in my experience grey squirrels tent to live in more urban areas while red squirrels prefer heavier forest. The leaner squirrels in the movie make sense as red squirrels, but the color was much too brown (a mistake that happens a lot in fiction)
@@dbseamz It might just be British squirrels, as there were several of both shades in the London park I walked through. I might be remembering things slightly incorrectly, though, as it was a while ago. I think they were all fatter, but maybe some weren't as fluffy as I remember.
To be fair on the Wonka backstory, Ronald Dahl’s wife was a producer and I believe helped Tim Burton with the film, it was the closest thing we could get to Dahl himself helping with the film.
In my opinion I don't think Charlie was being rewarded for being selfish in a negative way. I feel that Charlie is being rewarded in a Positive way since most of his actions and thoughts are about how he can help his family and not about what he wants and desires in his own life. So I think he was rewarded for finally wanting and doing something for himself for a change. Which for to me is a more balanced way to live.
Sometimes its good to be selfish! It can be a hard lesson for some people who are too giving.
Rebeca Jimenez That is such an understatement. I’m working on learning it for myself. I give way to much of myself which isn’t too bad but I’ve had a male friend recently tell me that I need to be more selfish when he found out some of the things I did. But yeah there’s nothing wrong with being selfish every once in a while.
In my opinion between the two movies I prefer Charlie in the original. 2005 Charlie was too saintly and he was considering selling the golden ticket to a stranger! While 1971 Charlie wanted the golden ticket more then anyone! So to me 1971 Charlie is more a normal child then 2005 Charlie.
The idea that economic hardship is a pain to be endured, which when properly done so is rewarded by mega corporations with opportunity that is the fruit of such hardships, is one of the central lies of neoliberalism and capitalism. It perpetuates economic disparity by the dream of wealth keeping the working classes complacent and dissuading them from partaking in either protest for their human rights or revolution against a flawed economic system.
The point of Charlie is that he is a good kid, he is morally pure inside a corrupt world. And he wins the factory by demonstrating such purity. In the original film, Charlie wins the factory by refusing to be corrupted by Soviet spies and to reinforce concepts of corporate ownership of ideas. Which makes the film Red Scare propoganda. No wonder Dahl hated it so much.
In Tim's remake, Charlie initially thinks the best use of this opportunity is to conform to the economic and political structures he was born under and perform the action which will immediately benefit the people he cares about by monetarily profiting from the ticket. He is then lectured by the cynical, jaded and depressed grandpa George about the nature of value, and that contrary to the claims of capitalism there are objects and concepts more valuable than money.
So yes, the original film turning a deconstructionist mockery of capitalism is most certainly not a good change. And don't pretend it's "just a meaningless kids novel", the original depicts justification of slavery, oppression of the working class and an insane head man child owner, the sequel is a satire of the space race, and the unwritten third novel was literally taking place in the white house. Charlie and the Chocolate factory is a political series, but despite most of the discourse around the property, it's not a support of slavery and capitalism, but instead the opposite. And Charlie is not meant to be a relatable "normal kid". He's meant to be idealised and naive of the larger economic and political structures he was born into on purpose. The other children were corrupted by their parent ideologies and spoiled, and that corruption is how such broken systems are perpetuated.
Yeah..but Charlie and his family are poor and starving. There's a major difference there.
Another change from book and movie: The "Great Glass Elevator", which was not only in the factory in the first book, but was the sole location of the book's sequel, "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator." In this movie, it's small, made mostly of metal, and can barely fit 3 people. In the book(s), the 'Great Glass Elevator' is entirely made of glass, and is HUGE! It is large enough to fit Charlie, his whole family, and Mr. Wonka, and still have comfortable room to move around inside it. :)
+sulacomarine now i have to read the book to understand how they fit a whole novel in the elevator
+QuikVidGuy Spaceship.
Willy Wonka is The Doctor!
Macaroni and Cliches they don't, they come back to the factory about halfway through, and at a point go to the land of the dead, kind of
really?! no one is going to say it? fine. So it's bigger on the inside?
4:47 He said 'Ladies and Gentlemen, now we are about to embark on a small trip'. His French is OK.
Utter nonsense.
As someone who took French in school for almost 5 years, I agree with Dom. Clearly made up gobbledegook language. Utter nonsense 😂
@@lightsideofsin8969You need to wash your lug'oles out matey. Clearly French with a somewhat strange accent.
The oompa loompas were indeed changed in appearance because of their slavery overtones which were indeed present in the book. In fact, the book states that Wonka travelled to Africa, which was where he found the oompa loompas, and brought them back to work for him. Yeesh.
“Stop mumbling, mumbler.” I have no idea why that’s my favorite line from the 2005 reboot. I probably still say it at least once a week.
I like how the fact that both Wonka and Charlie Don't follow in their father's footsteps, and in fact, polar opposite of what the job of their father is (Charlie gets a chocolate factory but his father works in a toothpaste factory, Wonka builds a chocolate factory but his father is a dentist), but they still love each other. These little details is what makes it one of my favorite movies.
Candy isn't a synonym for chocolate here in the US either we call chocolate chocolate. Candy is associated with sugar goodies like taffy and gummy treats.
L. T C. I get what you're saying, and you're generally correct, but I do hear chocolate called candy in the US.
I mean, we call kit-kats and snickers candy bars.
+Kerri September
That's likely because they're not entirely chocolate... The subject in question is pure chocolate.
L. T C. dont forget that hard hard
Hershey bars are also often referred to as candy bars. Pure chocolate, nothing else.
That may be a regionalism for you. I'm in the midwest, and chocolate comes under the umbrella of "candy." American English isn't monolithic. ;)
Verucas demise has always been the funniest one to me, literally being thrown in the trash lol. Not to mention the squirrels
It makes me wonder how the poor stunt artist felt about have load have high trained squirrels jump on them. Must have been the least bit stressful.
I actually like the changes in Burton's version. I've always thought that if you're going to adapt something, there should be a decent reason, other than a cash grab: either to present a visual experience you can't get in a novel, or to offer a new perspective, which will imply sometimes hugely drastic changes. I don't need a movie to be exactly like the book if I could just read the book. Burton took the original story and made it into a story about a man that does bad things to children because he himself did not have a childhood. He's punishing them for their entitlement, which I found interesting. Whether or not you like that plot is one thing, but at least Burton offered something new.
I agree. The book and the Burton version both fell whole in their way. The first film seems chopped of in comparison. Plus, the subplot of the psy and the test makes a big enough change so I wouldn't call that movie "faithful" (and that could explain why Dahl hated it).
I also liked the quirkiness of Burton's vision of Willy Wonka. He has been totally away from human contact for the better part of 20 years... being weird, dis-associative and out of sync from everybody else would make sense. When we saw it in the theater, my husband and I nearly fell out of our seats at his arrival... the singing dolls catching fire. We got the joke. Nobody else seemed to.
I always viewed the remake to be about the effect parents had on their children (mostly how parents hurt their children even while trying to do their best for them.) Every kid, including Wonka, are products of their upbringing. That’s actually why I liked what they added, as it helps tie together the theme for me.
In my opnion Burton's remake is a better movie than the original.
I really hated what they did to charley and wonka in the original movie.
@@pixietwitch what's the joke?
Apparently Burton had full support from Dahl's daughter for his additions, and he based the buckets house off of dahl's writing she'd, which, because that's what Dahl had mentally based it off of while writing, made his daughter say he was a perfect choice
Can you review other Roald Dahl adaptations? I'd love to see a review of Matilda or The Witches.
WAIT THERE’S A WITCHES MOVIE???
@@ProfessorWalnut And a Lost in Adaptation review on it!
@@ProfessorWalnut yes. The main difference between the book and the movie is the ending. The book ends with Luke just adapting to spend the rest of his life as a mouse. The movie ends with Luke being restored to his human form by a former bad witch.
And a review of Matilda: The Musical
Matilda: Carrie Jr.
Minor quibble: In the 1971 film, Wonka tells Charlie "When they leave here they'll be completely restored to their normal, terrible old selves. But maybe they'll be a little bit wiser for the wear."
Still, it would have been nice if the film were to show rather than tell, like the book and 2005 movie did.
Books I'd like to see adapted: "Howling Mad" by Peter David, "The Eyes of the Dragon" by Stephen King, and "Felix: The Twisted Tale of the World's Most Famous Cat" by John Canemaker, but only if they leave in the urinating-on-a-desk scene.
i am now addicted to your channel after having come across it 30 minutes ago :))))
Same.
me too! i was hooked after ella enchanted
Alexandria Miles me too
Same
same
The Dahl story with the "lowest body count" - except he replaced it with incredible body horror 😨😂
LOL "Saruman the dentist" had me laughing
Saruman the Sith lord vampire dentist.
Quite ironic that Burton captured most all the story elements from the book, but totally missed the message while the original movie made multiple changes, yet still managed to capture the spirit of the book far better than the reboot...but honestly what did anyone really expect from Tim Burton of all people?
Gloomy, Gothic Tim Burton adapting a lighthearted children's book? That's like getting Walt Disney to adapt "The Call of Cthulhu".
Disney's The Call of Cthulu? I honestly would love to see that!
Well, the original novel is a deconstructionist analysis of capitalism, and the original film literally tells kids to avoid Soviet corruption and not question or betray capitalist ideology. So, pretty sure the message was lost in translation.
Turbo Nerdo I think you might be reading to much into it.
@@samuelbarber4154
- Portrayal of oppression of the working class in the form of slavery
- Entrepreneurial innovationist portrayed as a crazy, psychopathic loner
- All the kids are reflections of mindless, obedient consumerism perpetuated by the previous generation, born into privileged positions of relative wealth
- Owner has the potential to utilise his inventions for groundbreaking innovation and betterment of human wellbeing, but only sells the things that can guarantee him maximum profit
- Destabalises an entire towns economy out of fear of infiltration by spies
- The narrative is resolved by the means of production being redistributed from the elitist multi-billion dollar owner to an impoverished poor child and the owner sacrificing his own position of economic power
- The second novel parodies the space race and the un-made third novel would have been set in the white house
Face it, this narrative is inherently political and economic. You cannot have a narrative that isn't economic when you set it in a factory, a location which literally houses the means of production. Now are all these details intentional? Who knows. I know the slavery thing was probably just Dahl being racist. But honestly, I really don't care, death of the author isn't 100% accurate, but I tend to favour it over auteur theory. Regardless, one or two of these details appearing is a coincidence, all them being present means this is definitely a valid reading.
A Donald comic does adapt the Call of Cthulhu. It is actually freakier than the Lovecraft's original due to the Ducks having, you know, a personality...
I think Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is a case of a film being bad as an adaptation, but absolutely fantastic as a stand-alone movie. I adore that film, and Gene Wilder is an international *treasure*. I can accept the greater number of changes because the end result is so nostalgic and fun.
One of my favourite lines in the remake was “everything in this room is eatable, even I’m eatable, but that is called cannibalism, and is in fact frowned upon in most societies”
Like, what the actual fuck is wrong with these writers
Seems like good info to teach kids. 1) You shouldn't eat people. And also, 2) You can if you really need to.
It's a remake only in the sense that it was an attempt to do something successfully that they failed at the first time. It's not a remake in the traditional sense, but an adaption of the book. Any similarities between the movies that don't come directly from the book are nods added by people like the set-dressers, as the script writers weren't even allowed to watch the original when they wrote the script.
@@sallytheuselessbird That is what I just said.
That line sums Wonka up really well. Insane, genius, and a strange sort of teacher.
Love that line! Depp's delivery of it always gets a smile out of me.
Also worth mentioning like others have...candy isnt synonymous with chocolate in the US either...here in the US at least in new england, candy seems to be any type of sugary sweet in general like for example a marshmallow peep could be described as candy
While we use the term candy bar to basically describe anything bar shaped that comes out of the Mars or hershey corporations
For the second movie, the reason tim burton added that stuff is actually very sweet, he went to visit his astranged grandmother and they hadn't talked for over a decade or something but right before he made willy, he saw her at her home, and she had newspaper clippings of everything he had done, sorry I didn't want this part to get mixed with my other comment in an edit or reply
@@TCgamerboy2002 and said 'dentist father' who 'didn't approve' still supported his son from afar and made note of all his accomplishments. he still loved him, that was never going to change.
Actually, one note about the songs in the remake is actually that they are accurate to the songs in the book. Admittedly, the ones in the original are more catchy and memorable though. Although I personally had no issues with the Wonka's childhood stuff in the remake, I didn't feel like it added anything either and would have been fine if it were left out. I remember the remake came out on my birthday and I actually read the book in preparation for it. I like both versions, and I really don't know which one I prefer more. Also, one funny thing about both films, is how the actual titles are different, where the first is called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory while the book and remake are called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
The reason the first movie was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was because at the time there was this street drug called "Charlie " and the writers feared that it would cause confusion. And they wanted to make sure that the story focused more on Wonka then Charlie.
@@melissacooper4482 and because Quaker oats wanted to sell more Wonka brand candy
@@melissacooper4482 I thought it was related to the (all too common) marketing fear that the lead actor not playing the title character would cause confusion.
@@melissacooper4482 "Charlie" was also considered an anti-Asian slur at the time the original film was released, which I suspect had something to do with the name change as well.
Hehe. I was just about to click away without realizing that you reviewed the other one! almost got me.
The first time I watched this I actually DID click away. It took a rewatch like 2 months later for me to realize that it keeps going there.
same i almost fell for it
As many have said, according to Dahl's estate he would actually have loved the 2005 version, and Roald himself said he hated the original. Also, it's unclear if this was an intentional joke or not, but the squirrels in the 2005 film actually were real, trained squirrels. (not all of them, but some)
Okay, but something really remarkable of the 2005 reboot was the music, beyond the oompa loompa songs. I still listen to them as if they were regular songs, they're just so good and moody!!
Dom: "Gene Wilder's performance was... ok"
Me and half of North America: *GASSSP* But its Gene Wilder!!!
Did you know that Roald Dahl himself hated Gene Wilder as Wonka?
@@Emisop Do you know that it doesn’t matter? Just because Dahl didn’t like it doesn’t mean the result was bad.
@@professorbutters It is 'kinda' bad when the screenwriters who where just looking for a pay day form Quaker Oats hires some you don't like behind your back despite being the writer of the story
RIP Gene Wilder
RIP Christopher Lee
EntertainmentBreeze rip traditional america
Insert Name Here there is no way you can compare the death of Gene Wilding to the death of a gorilla
Fuck you I Karen about him please not mention him just screwed up man
Don Corleone no killing people, that's bad.
My favorite thing about this review is that it highlights the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect adaptation!
Does that mean we don't have to pick a side?
@@ForrestFox626 You can like both or neither.
It all depends on what you prefer because both adaptations added plot points that were not in the original story. For 1971 version they had the whole Slugworth/Gobstopper subplot which tested Charlie's integrity at the end of the film. In the 2005 they added Wonka's backstory which explains why Wonka is the way he is and ultimately led to his reconciliation with his father at the end of that film.
@@ForrestFox626 my brother in christ
I heard somewhere that Dahl actually hated the first adaptation, to the point he said no other Chocolate Factory films could be made until after his death.
The video: *appears to end*
Me: *notices it's got over half of it left*
Me: 🤔
Also, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory wasn't a reboot. It was an independent adaptation of the book.
A remake at best
Considering the book never specified the nationality of the kids, I think it is fair to say that was taken from the 71 version.
I agree.
@@sallytheuselessbird When did I say it was a reboot?
@@HerohammerStudios
It’s not a remake in the slightest. A remake is a movie based on a pre-existing movie, which is not the case here. John August, the screenwriter, had not watched the 1971 film and director Tim Burton disliked the earlier film for not being too faithful to the story.
"stop, don't, come back" :[
MJ and Patrick at the Cold Fall Out Disco! Dragons oh god I busted up when he did that when I rewarded that movie this past Saturday. I love wilder's performance.
Your username has earned you my respect
Am i the only one who liked burton's version and wasn't all like:BURRTTTONNN WHYYYYYYYY!?!?!?! in the end?Because i think i am
I didn't mind it.
i like Burton's better too
You are not. I think I read the book before I saw the 70s movie and all the changes bugged me as a result. I liked Burton because it was closer to the book.
I think both adaptations are at an "Okay" level. I loved the book as a child, but my mum thought the 70s movie was too scary for me. Years later I got curious and watched both adaptations, and I found there are pros and cons to both. I like both films while recognising the flaws of either. I enjoy the slight awkward moments and the sets of Tim Burton's film. And I love Gene Wilder's performance as Wonka. The way I see it it's a matter of taste.
no i totally agree with you.
Oompa Loompa, Doopity Doo, Burton's working through his daddy issues
He doesn't care if he screws up the plot, He'll do it his way whether you like it or not
It could have been good if he'd thought a little harder, And not just cast Depp and Bonham Carter
Roald Dahl would have kicked him right in the Jewels, Oompa Loompa Doopity Doo.
I just died XD
Actaully Roald Dahl hated the 70's movie and whilst he never saw the 2005 movie his wife did say that he would have liked it more
"Saruman the dentist" is now my favorite phrase.
I'm sorry, but you need to read the book again. Both movies left out the chapter with the "square candies that look round." That was one of my favorite parts of the book. Also, I think the second film is far superior to the original in both tone and story. Maybe not the message, but I just think the second film is better overall. It's just because it's a remake and because it's Burton that people insist that it's lesser to the original.
Well, the square sweets that look round don't work in movie form.
@@strawberrysoulforever8336 I think they could work. Have the eyes side away from the camera, and then when Willy enters the room, they turn around. It could totally work.
@@Barnowl65 Yes, but the joke was very text-based, with the "look round" part was that they looked "around". If you watch bandgeek8408's Books vs Movies review of the 1971 movie and the book, he explains why it works better in the book.
I honestly have a soft spot for the original film, not because it's burton (I love a lot of Burtons stuff, and even Depps stuff), but because for me Willy Wonka will always be the guy that watches some kid run off with a dead pan expression "Stop. No. Don't. come back." aimed so sarcastically at the mother. Gene Wilder -was- Willy Wonka for me. Maybe because I grew up with it. I also actually really liked a lot of the original songs in the first film.
The second film, I did enjoy it. I There were elements I would have adored to see in the original film if it had been possible at the time. However, what spoiled the remake for me was the daddy issues Wonka had.
It seemed to come back to that as a constant throughout the entire film, even when really there was no need for it to come up at all. Wonka didn't -need- Daddy issues. He didn't need a tragic back story. In the books for me. Wonka was very child like throughout, and Depp, while a good actor, portrayed an adult who had trauma. He didn't really portray someone who was child like.
Wilder did. He was funny, engaging, and even somewhat unecessarily cruel because of his self absorbed nature. Traits that a good number of children have and eventually grow out of. Endearing in children though, but a little creepy and strange in an adult. It's what he needed to be.
Original film version cons for me... even as a child and later as an adult.. I -hated- the fizzy lifting drinks scene. It always weirded me out, not only because of teh whole near death experience thing, but because it came so far out of left field for me. Charlie wasn't supposed to be the type to steal or misbehave. He was always a good boy and then just randomly he does that one thing, and even worse there's no real consequences for it. It wasn't in the book and I didn't want it in the film tbh.
The remake -was- a lot more faithful to the book with the songs from the Oompa Loompas and a lot of the dialogue though, so I will give them that, and there really was a lot of good things about it.
Original wins it for me though, even without the square sweets that look round, a pun that works a lot better in novel form than visual form I feel.
@@strawberrysoulforever8336 I don't see how it wouldn't. I was confused when I saw that video way back in the day, why he thought it wouldn't work, and was only text-based. I would only understand if the text was describing them as "looking round, and the joke was completely centered around, the play on words, but there is a reveal at the end of them "looking 'round", just like how a movie would present it.
I can think of a few smalls things they left out of the new film.
In the first chapter there is a bit about Charlie rationing the chocolate bar he gets for his birthday.
After the first four tickets are found there is a bit more about the family starving to death in the book and when Charlie finds the money in the snow he buys two chocolate bars with it, eating the first veryy quckly and finding the golden tcket inthe second.
The scary tunnel is a bit longer in the book.
There are a few more rooms they walk past in the book that Wonka talks about briefly, including "square sweets that look round" as in, they have faces that look around the room they are in, so I guess they were alive.
Wonka also mentions that the factory has a second elevator that goes the opposite way on the same track as the one they use.
"Burton's working through his daddy issues..."
Yep. He did this with "Sleepy Hollow" and Crane's hyper-religious dad, too.
so, the 2005 remake was more true to the book
Even a lot of the lyrics used in the remake were from the book.
True
Technically. I still didn't like it, the book was good though
+Elias Villa have to agree with you there
I know right? who knew!
The little kid who played Charlie in the Tim Burton one? He now is the star of The Good Doctor. Blew my mind when I learned that.
And he does an impeccable American accent.
Tim Burton's may have had only 72% on Metacritic, but it gets a 100% in my heart
Wilder's meaner portrayal was necessary to display the creepiness of the character in the book. He was supposed ominous, with slick black hair and goatee. Wilder could not do this, but I felt he more than made up for it.
The Oompa-Loompas had more slavery undertones in the books originally. The version we have now shows them as being very pale, but they were originally dark-skinned. Dahl ended up having to change their appearances so it wasn't totally obvious that they were based on African-American slaves. But it was almost definitely an intentional parallel.
I've heard that in the editions of the book illustrated by Quentin Blake, the Oompa-Loompas are multi-coloured. Dunno if that came before or after the film, though.
Well, the slavery undertones are still there, and whatever the parallel was meant to be, it was still rather racist, in the vein of some of the stuff Disney did. Thursday or whatever he was called, the little African child sent to Mickey Mouse in this one book, was completely ignorant. And it's either that, or Uncle Remus from Song Of The South. Neither of those are exactly culturally sensitive.
A reminder that Dahl was a man of his time.
Black slaves, NOT african-americans.
Dom: “Reboots always try to adapt the original”
Not this one, Burton actually told everyone on set to avoid watching the original film so that it wouldn’t influence anything
Also, the reason Charlie’s dad was deceased in the original was because the film makers wanted Charlie to see Wonka as more of a father figure
Fun fact: it was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory because Roald Dahl saw the final cut and concluded that it wasn't his story and disowned it. He originally began writing his own screenplay, but it was completed by someone else as Dahl missed too many deadlines.
My favorite part from the remake is when Wonka is explaining how everything including him is edible, but that's cannibalism.
“I can’t sing... but you get the point...” I thought your singing was very good!
its definitely better than my singing
Burton had told the script writer to not see the original, which he hadn’t done before getting the job anyway. So this is one of those rare occasions where they aren’t adapting the original movie, just the book
Actually, there was a sequel book to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" where it explores Wonka's past and history. The 2005 film wanted to include both books.
Also, I can't believe he didn't mention the book's lost chapters that could have gone well with the grim theories made of both movies.
Fun Fact: The actress playing Veruca Salt in the Gene Wilder version actually cut her knee very badly on a rock during the scene where the children are running around the first candy room. She didn't want to disrupt the scene however, and didn't tell anyone until they were done filming the scene, even though it was a bad enough cut that it left a permanent scar.
I've heard that the rest of the cast had no idea what Gene Wilder would do, so all their reactions to Wonka's antics (hell tunnel included) were completely real. That flower teacup he bit into was also made of wax and he had to spit it out right after that scene. XD
This book also has genuinely the most insane sequel I've ever come across.
The Vermicious knids.
am I allowed to like both movies. There both classics
Reese Miller eh, the burton one is fun, the gene wilder one is a classic.
Reese Miller
Both movies are great. Neither of them was 100% accurate to the book, but a lot of enjoyable details were kept in. I had a lot of fun watching them. The original is indeed a classic already. I don't know if the reboot might become one as well, but I really hope so.
Reese Miller The answer is no if you're gonna use the wrong form of “they're”
Reese Miller Yes. So do I.
Reese Miller I love both
"You thought, because I use long words, that I wasn't a horrific pervert?"
All people who are even mildly intelligent are massive sexual deviants, in my experience.
Also 10:41 is that the bloke who ran the asylum in Burton's version of Sweeney Todd?
As a person who regards themselves as about half-bright I resent that remark! As does my dominatrix friend who calls me over whenever she gets a new whip to try it out on her!
That was hilarious!! 😂
@@JamesWilson-vr3ql Wait, when was the last time a dominatrix let someone _else_ use her whip on _her?_ 🤔
I understand perfectly what Wonka said "Medames et monsieurs, maintenant nous allons faire un petit voyage." Which mean "Ladies and gentlemen, now we will go on a small trip."
"He even responds to questions in made up gobbledy-gook (as Wonka speaks French) Absolute nonsense I say!"
Ah, spoken like a true Brit.
Really appreciate you doing both movies!!
Has he done a review on Matilda? That'd be a great one to do.
Am I the only one who would love a lost in adaptation episode on “The BFG”?
"Gene Wilder's Wonka is... OK."
_Pitchforks rise from within the audience._
"Johnny Depp's Wonka is funny!"
_Torches are lit in the crowd._
I don't know why but I LOLed at "Saruman the Dentist"
Well, you could say Burton's daddy issues aren't as bad as Spielberg's
Dom: upset they didn't include the choco palace in the original film
Also the Dom: upset they DID include choco palace in the 2nd film
Jk, used to love this channel Dom, so glad I started watching you again. How's Terrence the D-bag? Still tryna campaign for Hufflepuffs?
"Gene Wilder's portayal of Willy Wonka was okay"
I'm sorry,
*"okay"?*
Blasphemy!
I didn't see it mentioned but the songs in the remake, while cut a bit short, are basically word for word taken from the book with music added.
The girl that turned into a blueberry scarred me as a child. To this day I still have an intense fear of blueberries because of it. I can't eat, touch, or be near blueberries. It's that bad. This is movie really scarred me (the original not the Johnny Depp version)
4:46 Um actually that's not a made up language. It's french. He said something along the lines of (Excuse me, I'm a bit rusty) "Ladies and gentlemen get ready for a small trip." Unless that was the joke. In that case it flew right over my head. Whoops.
Dats da joke.
Sounds like German to me but could be French
It's because he's English and there is a historic rivalry (albeit currently far less bloody) between the French and the English.
It's all Greek to me :P
May I introduce you to the art of sarcasm? Brits like the Dom are pros at it.
Saruman the dentist killed me
I like both the old and the new film. I usually can't stand Burton but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a very rare exception.
Also, in the original print of the book, the Oompa Loompa's were shown in an illustration with dark skin. Due to the slavery undertones in book, the illustration was changed in newer copies of the book. That is probably why Tim Burton gave them brown skin.
Or probably because Deep Roy has brown skin and Burton just picked him because he's a dwarf actor willing to do it
AdoreSinging394% Deep Roy is Indo-Kenyan and people of Indian descent have a variety of skin colors.
The irony there is that of course, since it's stated Lumpaland is in Africa, some might say NOT giving them brown skins was racist.
I always kind of thought that movie Charlie was lying about buying it for Grandpa Joe, like he was self conscious about buying another bar so he tacked on "for my grandpa joe" even though the candy salesman never asked.
Fun fact: in the Tim Burton version, those squirrels all _WERE_ trained to do that scene. They weren't CGI squirrels. They really actually went to the bother of training them all. So in theory the same could have been done in the first adaptation if they wanted to put the time and money into doing it.
You know, I'm going to have to play Devil's advocate and say that I actually preferred the remake over the original. That's not to say that I didn't think the original was a good, because I most certainly did; however, I found a lot of the additions to be very much unnecessary. At best I found them to be distracting from the main plot, and at worst they messed with characters and motivations, causing tonal inconsistencies and taking away from some of the characters' charm. As a side note, Dahl apparently hated how the original film turned out so much that he refused the studio the rights to produce its sequel. For me, the tone of the remake felt much more in keeping with the book, and it followed the plot much more faithfully. In some cases, I actually found that Burton made improvements from the source material as he built on the characters' personalities, creating more variation outside of one defining trait. Honestly, I found only one of the grandparents to be pessimistic while the rest remained positive. Grandpa Joe having that connection to the factory added an extra layer to his character, and the family as a whole felt much more like fully fleshed out people, as did the majority of the characters. While the subplot of Willy's childhood and the reunion with his father at the end were bound to be polarizing for some, I think that actually made more sense given that in both the book and the original, virtually nothing was revealed about Willy's past, and he actually has very little in terms of actual development. I feel Mr. Dahl may have appreciated this, and overall been much more satisfied with the new version as a whole. I could go into a lot more detail on this, but I think I've made my point.
"You know, I'm going to have to play Devil's advocate"
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I completely agree with you on this one, I actually liked the Remake much more than the original.
The fact that you quoted the princess bride movie is intriguing in response to this comment
Maybe from adaptational point of view. To me the music,aesthetics and acting in the original were so much better than the remake that it wins hands down if one is judging them simply as films with no regard to their being adaptations.
@@flamemasterelan and what do you think it means?
This dude talking about how he was so disappointed that Tim Burton put in the subplot about Willy Wonka's childhood. You do realize that that subplot was Licci Dahl's idea, right? She pushed for it to be included and she said that Roald would have loved the addition to the story. Plus, the entire 2005 movie was given the Dahl stamp of approval, while the 1971 movie was denounced by Roald Dahl. He hated that first movie so much that he forbid anyone to make another Willy Wonka movie in his lifetime, while also insisting on complete creative control with any other movie adaptations of his books.
Interesting how the general public thinks that the OG film is a nostalgic classic and the remake to be weirdly bad while the Dahl family thinks otherwise.
@@modmaker7617 They just don't like it because of rose-tinted glasses, Johnny Depp's version of Willy Wonka, and "too much CGI". Of course Johnny's version is more accurate to how he would be after being locked in a factory for a decade with no one but Oompa Loompas for company, and a lot of the things people complain about being terrible CGI are actually real things that were on set, and the things that are actually CGI are not as critiqued.
@@SpeedyCheetahCub
I like how the Johnny Depp movie blended CGI with practical effects. I genuinely sometimes cannot tell which is which. I find Johnny Depp's version of the character to be relatable but that's a personal thing. This film is a part of my childhood. I my have rose-tinted glasses for this film.
I haven't seen the original film so I can't really say if it's good or bad.
"12 Years An Oompa Loompa"
Oscar bait, if ever I heard it.
The use of the "I Like Bukkake" song... 😂😂😂
"I wish they put the chocolate prince scene in"
"Oh man that scene was a a bit racist, i wish they took it out"
lmao make up your mind dude
In some defense; there are definitely a lot of scenes within books that sound grand and amazing visually, but ultimately you kind of end up being lame and disappointing once they actually get to the live action screen. Think of the non-Euclidean spaces found in HP Lovecraft’s work and how you can’t really make those spaces practically or how none of hid monster are really fully described.
Rip christoper lee
"I can't sing but oyou get the point"
HAH! what a lie, you can sing :)
7:57 the reason why they killed off Charlie's dad is simple: Chauvinism. The idea of the time was that the only way a family could be that poor is if there's no husband/father in the picture
15:25
Believe it or not, the songs are based on the actual lyrics from the book right down to the wording. By that logic, the Oompa-lompas from the books were a-holes as well.
RIP Gene Wilder :(
I know, great talent has been lost. R.I.P Gene Wilder, you will be greatly missed.