Edit: It seems like certain individuals are choosing to get personally offended at my critiques of Burton's Wonka movie and deliberately ignoring the numerous positive things I praised it for. GUYS... the movie is FINE and if it's your favorite of the two that's great! I am personally not a fan, so watching it 5+ times in the process of writing this episode was a bit of a slog so I incorporated a few jokes about it into the presentation. If it means that much to you, I'm deeply sorry for making fun of Johnny Depp's hair. Can we be friends again? 💜 🇬🇷 Join me on the Messed Up Origins Field Trip to GREECE! www.trovatrip.com/trip/europe/greece/greece-with-jon-scudieri-sep-2024 🇬🇷
I think Grandpa Joe was mad depressed and Charlie was his only joy. So when Charlie got the last ticket it gave him something to live for, at least for a little bit.
@@skaervan I'm British. I would imagine that in a climate even harsher and further north than the one I'm used to, everyone was expected to pull their weight as far as possible.
If I went into a museum and started painting tops over the exposed breast of classic painting and sculptures, I would be arrested. These people changing books and stories from the past are no different. We should not force our current morals on works of the past, or we erase our ability to see both our growth and, at times, our mistakes.
Too right. I read the Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn books at school. We don’t have to agree with the negative sentiments expressed by some of the characters in the book, but we can learn from the past
@@patricianunes3521 I think it's important to not change them. It shows how the times have changed and what we've improved upon or hadn't improved. It even shows us what has stayed the same. Changing them really limits the learning we do with books. Instead, there's nothing to learn.
But the original works are still accessible. By your analogy, what's actually happening is that people are making a new version of the artwork that originally had no top, and because they recognise that some people will be really upset by the artwork having no top they're giving it a top so it'll be accessible to everyone - not just the people who don't feel troubled by seeing an artwork without a top. Meanwhile the people who want to see the artwork without a top on can still see it, and probably get a bit of extra enjoyment out of thinking they're better than other people because they prefer the edgy original, because it's still there. It hasn't gone anywhere, because the thing being adjusted isn't the original work.
23:23 Fun fact! In the Wilder version when he started singing, the actors actually had no idea that he was going to start singing. So their look of confusion and slight terror is real.
The fact that Veruca's father is incapable and powerless to intervene for her is THE WHOLE POINT. Her father's character totally explains how Veruca got that way.
That’s actually a good point. He was a spineless pushover and she took FULL advantage of that. But I do think he could have panicked more, maybe did a little jig as he struggles with what to do
I will say this about the squirrel gate: I always interpreted this as the father not being one for taking action or putting himself in harm’s way because he’s used to throwing money at his problems. While likely concerned for Varuca, he wasn’t brave enough to jump that little gate and face the dozens of trained squirrels.
That's also the way I saw it. It even shows him hesitate to reach down the hole and grab her as he looks at everyone else searching for someone else to do it for him. I think it also demonstrates the parents who show their care and worry for their children on the outside but inside they would rather that someone else would do all that for them. There are just so many ways to interpret that scene which is why I loved that scene so much.
@@kristinacoughlin1063 yep, as soon as original mr salt realized the garbage chute went to the furnace he didn't even hesitate to jump head-first down the hole with his daughter. slightly better father than burton's mr salt but he still sucks
Fun fact: in the first movie, none of the actors had seen the chocolate room set before shooting, so their expressions are 100% genuine, as it was their first time seeing it.
Id love to check where you found this out? Considering thats what i do, iv never heard of an actor ever see a set while shooting for the first time. How it works is they come into the set, theres a private blocking, where they practice there lines, there marks, which is where they stop and walk to for camera to measure and mark how there focus is lined up with the cameras there acting for. Then theres public blocking where the whole crew of 100+ returns thrn they act it out for us so we know where to set up lights and move furniture. Then when thats all set up they return and we shoot everyhing practiced prior, thats how it works for every scene shot in film. Anyways let me know, thanks.
It’s funny but I somehow knew this I had to of read it a long time ago I just can’t remember where 😂 seeing your comment brought back the memory of reading it somewhere I think it was one of those articles that say funny facts about movies you didn’t know
There's that chapter in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where Charlie exerts himself as little as possible because he realizes he (and his family) are starving to death. Seriously. I read that book when I was 10 and I had never read anything that disturbing before. It kind of blew my little mind.
As a kid who grew up pretty poor - I identified with Charlie - but also used his level of poverty as a bit of a leveling metric for my own. Well at least I have something other than cabbage soup every night for dinner. We’ll at least my grandparents live in their own house etc 🤣
My dad got this far and wouldnt read the rest of the book to me, because in his childhood he was under occupation in Guernsey and this was a little to real.
This dude was virtue signaling in parts of the video trying to fit into the pop social beliefs to look like a good person. He literally got offended in the video and tried to prove that he isn't a bad person.
I honestly did not even notice. Was cooking dinner then eating as it played and until I saw your comment I wouldn't have. That's how great a storyteller Jon is.
"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed, and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!"
@@greenmoon8432 that and “et cetera, et cetera” is how I’ve been ending arguments since the early 90s when I was in jr high 🤣🤣🤣 my favorite part of the movie
When I read the book as a child or watched the 1970’s version I never got the impression that Grandpa Joe was a scumbag, or deadbeat, but an older man suffering from bad depression from living a life of hardship and seeing 2 generations after him having to go through the same problems without any hope. And Charlie finding the golden ticket was what lifted him out of it.
33:50 I think Wonka tells Charlie that the button has never been pressed to add an element of wonder and curiosity for Charlie , rather than him never having used it before
I think the little gate that did stop the father from saving his daughter, is a pretty accurate metaphor for this kind of parents. They will give their children everything they don't want and need but no love. Wouldn't save them from predators etc. I think it's a great scene.
I do too. I think it is actually meant for us to get to this conclusion: he'll pay any money so she won't whine and bother him, but will not break a sweat to save her, as her disappearing, in a sense is as good as paying for things that will make her quiet and unnoticeable...
Well, I think if he DID climb over the gate, then the squirrels would have attacked him too. Possibly, I think he was just paralyzed with fear, and all he could do was watch in horror.
Fun fact, the reason that the guests reaction seems so genuine when they enter the chocolate room in the 1971 version is because it is. They didn't allow the actors to see the set until they were ready to film that shot. So, you are seeing their genuine reaction to seeing the set for the first time.
I love the social satire in the first half of the 1971 film, especially the cop show spoof about the woman who has to give up her Wonka bars to save her husband. Comedy is always at its funniest when you mix (somewhat) serious stuff in with it.
As a kid, I found the first half of the movie to be boring, but as an adult, it is perhaps my favorite part; the woman who needs to give up her case of Wonka bars to save her husband, the scientist using the computer to find the location of a golden ticket (and failing), the auction, the classroom scenes, that guy from Paraguay who made the fake ticket, all great. EDIT: I forgot that guy on the therapist's coach being pressured by his counselor to reveal where he found the golden ticket in his dream LOL.
@@bigtimetimmyjim6486 Same, I found a lot of the beginning of the 71 version boring as a kid, and being so young, most of the jokes between the adults flew over my head, lol. I do remember thinking that nearly every single adult in the film (with the exception of Charlie's family) were unnecessarily mean, but as an adult I realized that is intentional and now the first half is probably my favorite. The scene with the scientist and his computer cracks me up especially when he angrily says "I'm now telling the machine exactly what it can do with a golden ticket!! " or something along those lines lol
This will always be my favorite book. I read it as a child and, when Charlie realized he had the Golden Ticket, my imagination exploded with pictures. I'll never forget that. I've been an avid reader my whole life as a result.
@@sepulchral. Was it? I mostly saw it as a fun change up to things and then they show "the bad guy" and call him out. I mean, they're just bugs. And if you didn't know nature was all about things killing other things by the time you were sentient, that seems more disturbing.
To be fair, Wonka doesn't screw Charlie out of the prize at the end; he clearly violated the terms of the contract by drinking fizzy lifting drinks, a mistake very similar to that committed by the other 4 kids. He does deserve the prize at the end as a result of not being vindictive over the disqualification and surrendering the gobstopper, but it only serves to affirm a part of his character that was called into question by his earlier actions.
It was a bit of an odd decision though. The movie was made to promote sales of chocolate and the script isn't perfect. It was really the music and Gene Wilder's whimsical performance that turned a movie that flopped at the box office into a cult classic. The script have issues and the budget was really low even for the time (in today's money it cost 20 million dollars). But it is a musical with great music, no one can take that from it. Burton's movie is a lot closer to the book though (but Depp's weird style and somewhat strange performance doesn't exactly help it).
Also notice how each time a kid goes missing, theres only enough room on the ship for those who remain, meaning wonka knew when a character would disappear.
Each room was set up in the original movie for each kid. Slugworth was the culprit to send them to the after life as willy Wonka is a bad wizard or he's the devil. The kids had gobstoppers before being on the boat which was their token to be ferried over to purgatory and work your way outta pandoras box. You can't go back to get out you have to move forward and the oopma loompas are little demons in disguise and when you die their they sing in sync so you're in hell.
I FULLY AGREE with what Jon Solo said about preserving the original version, rather than the edition that had their souls sucked out of them dry. I would rather have my child read esteemed award-winning books from an esteemed, but imperfect author, than rather an edition of his books that were manipulated and had the souls sucked out entirely. At scene 48:43!!
Two interesting facts about Gene Wilder's acting. It was his idea to walk limping with the cane up to the gate and to fall forward and flip to the gate. Several lines Gene Wilder said in the movie were out of impulse at the time, namely "Candy is Dandy, but Liquor is Quicker."
@@interestings7866 I didn't know, but it sounds like something he would do. Gene Wilder was amazingly talented and funny. Young Frankenstein is my favorite comedy, and therefore one of my favorite films. I saw the Wonka film as a child and frankly I found parts of it frightening, especially the boat ride, buy also the unpredictability of the Wonka character. Think it has to do with my childhood that set off warning bells "unsafe/unreliable adult". I also did not fully understand that some of the punished children weren't dead. I'm an HSP though, highly sensitive personality.
@@lynninpainThe walking with a limp/falling bit was actually Wilder wanting to show Wonka As untrustworthy, as his first appearance is one of deceit but played for laughs, I Loved his Wonka a lot
He puts his nose in the air and smells the chocolate from the factory, I do the same thing when I walk past my local dispensary 💀😂 you earned a sub for that
As someone with major mobility issues due to an injury, i can relate to grandpa. We went on a cruise last year, and although painful, I was much more active fueled by excitement
I was like one of those nameless injured ppl you read about after a shooting but soon forget unless you know them personally-- I am crippled and with missing jaw bone and many procedures later chronic pain and keg muscle atrophy. My biggest lament is missing biking. Well, I mean besides the obvious walking and being able to reach everyday things, lol! ;) It IS amazing how an outting, or especially a visit and hearing happy news from someone else- and being genuinely happy for THEM - can give you that little bit of a lift. I can totally relate!! Stay strong, friend!
Did we forget the 1971 version? Joe didn't want to get out of bed. Joe didn't want to go to the factory. Charlie pulled Joe's legs out and made him get up.
There’s a short series on Netflix that depicts four of Dahl’s short stories directed by Wes Anderson and it’s beautiful but also definitely highlights how weird some of Dahl’s works could be
I loved these shorts. I grew up reading the swan about a million times and seeing it be put on a screen as such a faithful adaptation was amazing. The final shot, though not book-accurate, was haunting
@@markbills4122 they are offered as individual shorts so are not grouped as usual.. but the stories featured are Poison, the Swan, the wonderful story of Henry Sugar, and The Rat Catcher
@@PariahQuailagreed and to me I think Tim Burton did a good job for Charlie and the chocolate factory but Wes Anderson was great for fantastic Mr fox.
Oompa Loompas are orange and green because Mel Stuart improvised it on the spot when asked to change their skin color. He mentioned this in his book called Pure Imagination.
So this decision was made before Dahl had changed them in the book? If so, that would explain the difference between the movie and the revised version.
Nothing was more magical to me than Gene Wilder and being born in 1971 I don't know how many times I sat in front of the TV year after year glued to the most unique movie I've ever seen !
I'm actually excited to see this movie version because I am a huge fan of Paul King, the writer/director. He wrote and directed both paddington films which, while not straight adaptations, kept the spirit and intent of the author and the characters were lovingly represented in the films. I hope that King has done the same thing for Willy Wonka that he did for Paddington. The Paddington films remain, in my opinion, some of the best family films ever made.
I grew up reading Dahls books. I dont think I’d have the crazy wide imagination i have if it wasn’t for him. Definitely played a huge role in my childhood.
@silencedlamb__ The thumbnail lets you believe that the story is more messed up than it is, which isn't the case. so I am right in my assumption if that makes sense
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my hands down favorite book as a child. As a black child I never once gave the original portrayal of the Ompa Loompas a second thought.
I love how in the old movie, the abandoned factory had this creepy vibe. Every abandoned building/factory with smoke stacks I see still makes me think of Wonka's factory
Wait I'm not sure a bustling factory with hundreds of workers and a crazy inventor living inside qualifies as "abandoned". Still I know what you mean, it looks desolate from the outside.
I am 42 years old, and have loved Dahl since the first time i read his book, James and the Giant Peach, in 3rd grade. As soon as I had finished that book, I went in search of anything else he had written, leading me to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I now own every one of his books. I read each one to my husband while traveling with him when he was an over the road truck driver. His favorite is Danny Champion of the World. Dahls life story is one of his own amazing adventures! When i heard the news that they were to edit his work, i was completely heart broken. And I was thankful I already owned my own copies. My daughter grew up on these stories. It never fazed her in one small amount. She found them just as fun and entertaining as I did. And when I think of Dahl and his works, I only find joy. And really, I dont understand people who wanted to change his work. He meant no harm in his words, and they know that. But, for a little publicity, I guess people will say whatever they want to get attention.
At 7:41 the boy in the red shirt in the Gene Wilder version is Peter Stuart, son of director Mel Stuart. The charracter the boy portrays is named Winkleman. In the 2023 Wonka, an actress named Sophie Winklemann portrays the Countess. What a coincidence!
We know the book is set in the UK. The reason is because of the coin Charlie finds that allows him to buy the chocolate bars that contain the golden ticket. The book clearly states that this coin was a 50p piece. That places the story squarely in the UK.
@@lucasoheyze4597 Possibly but there's also the matter of the change he got, all British coins. The shop keeper saying he'll get a "Stomach Ache" if he ate it so fast. That's a very British thing to say. The fact Dahl was a resident of the UK means he'd naturally place the story there. If they edited it to post-decimalization British coin names, then the previous pre-decimalization coin names would have still been British so the editing is actually irrelevant. In the sequel, where the US President asks what aliens eat, his aid says "Mars Bars", a confection that would have been unknown in the US again demonstrating that Dahl's mind was firmly rooted in Britain even when writing about another country. The illustrations in the sequel clearly show an outline of the British Isles when the Great Glass Elevator is zooming into space from the factory. I could go on and on, but there are literally dozens of things that Dahl wrote and publishers included that categorically place the story in the UK.
@@spudhead169 I don't disagree with you on it being set in the UK. I'm curious about your stomach ache comment though. I've lived in the US my whole life and so did my parents, and grandparents. We all say stomach ache. I don't feel like it's unique to British people. Am I missing something?
You are absolutely correct to raise the subject of the anonymous sensitivity readers. It did not go down well at all in the U.K. either. My personal opinion has always been that you can’t learn from history if you hide it under the rug. Pretending anything didn’t happen won’t help anyone. This editing is a good example.
I wouldn't consider this a good example of hiding history. Because there isn't anything wrong with these books to hide in the first place. Its just woke, outrage, cancel culture needing something to be upset about.
I can’t believe that they erased all of this stuff about it. Like, we all know that Augustus Gloop is fat. I always figured it was part of the fact that he was super greedy. Are they all supposed to look exactly the same?
Too concerned with "saftey" and not Liberty. Therefore your Rights get taken away. Hanging on by threads these days, destroying history and replacing it with lies for people who have serious problems with reality.
I actually like the idea of the "honesty test" added to give Charlie a little more protagonist feel. When faced with the choice of getting his family some much needed money in a dishonest way or doing the right thing to continue living in poverty, he chooses the right thing, a huge character moment and one thay cements Charlie as the undeniable hero of the story.
The problem I had with it, is that in the book it said he didn't let anyone into the factory after he reopened it, so to have someone work for him and go outside broke that idea, how did he know this person was loyal?
@revengenerd1 i always interpreted it as either a very close friend or someone who came along later and PROVED his loyalty somehow. But you aint wrong either
Especially since his act of honesty was immediately after being told he lost and would be receiving no reward. Nothing material would be gained from that act, which Wonka recognized as Charlie's true nature. Hence the 180.
Being 62 years old, I did grow up with all of Dhal's stories and found them delightful. Your overview was spot-on with Charlie, as I had read the book well before the first movie came out. Your conclusions about both movies are accurate also, excellent job. Thank you.
Oh spelling Dahl I still loved his equivocal works where things were not ok- was disappointed by the 1974 version and haven’t bothered with the 2005. The story is problematic in any case
I think the fact that the father did not make an effort to rescue his daughter even though there was a small barrier was a fitting metaphor. Because when you have money and resources and only offer your child money and resources doesn’t take any effort. But adjusting your life to put your child/ family first is a huge adjustment. So the fact that he did not make any effort to save her is fitting for the amount of effort he made to raise her. I think the kids and their bad behavior was also reflected in how they were raised. So both parents and children needed to make adjustments
I was think the same thing. His solution to everything in life is to toss money at it and in this one situation where he needs to take real action to save his daughter, he's completely stumped
@@hughmungus431Father shaming??? Mother coddling??? Where??? ALL parents in this film (safe for Charlie's) are shown to be bad and the reason their children are narcissistic selfish pricks. There is no gender divide.
I have a theory/opinion about Grandpa Joe. I believe it's a mixture of depression and Munchausen. Think about it the depression comes from losing his beloved job and the Munchausen comes from his family constantly telling him he is to old and fragile to get out of bed..everyone but Charlie that is. When Charlie finds the golden ticket 2 things happen Charlie the one person that doesn't make Joe feel old and fragile wants him to go and 2 he wants him to go visit the one place aka old job that brought grandpa Joe happiness..to me it makes sense that he was able to get out of bed atm ..but that's just me🤷🏽♀️
Not a bad theory, true, but this is a book meant for young kids, not teens, & the likelihood they know anything about those mental conditions is so tiny. So it would be really hard for them to get that analogy.
I read the "old school" version 6+ times as a child. There was never anything to compare it with or that surpassed it! I learbed how hysterically funny and clever you could make rhymes by reading the oompa loompa songs again and again. Grade school kids are both kind hearted heros and monsters, and Dahl revealed this to CHILDREN, who were already experiencing this in thier daily lives.
Publishers have been constantly trying to force writers to dull down aspects of sandess, violence and discrimination in kids books for hundreds of years. In the words of Beatrix Potter "The stories I write may contain cute, fuzzy fantastical talking animals, but the world they live in is all too real. Just like the world of the children who read them."
I love both movies. I say that with no "buts" and no irony. I think they're just two different takes on a classic, created at different times and with different sets of tools available to each director. I know a lot of people feel the need to rank one over the other, but I don't. They're just different, is all.
I always liked the books and the first movie, but always wished that they had done a film of the second book, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. A lot more action, going into outer space and back to the factory, and even more rooms that hadn't been discussed before.
Well put. Changing original works because of sensitivity is odd. Many things in history you learned in school is very docile. But truth is brutal. Thank you for your content.
Main thing I remember from reading these books as a kid is that the sequels are even more of a fever dream than the first one. Part of me still thinks I made up Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator
The "knife man" is not really strange, he's a "tinker" they were quite common in the previous century, particularly in Europe. They would sharpen and sell knives and fix items.
Imagine having a man with a cart of knives knock on your door. And tinkers were considered some of the lowest of the classes of people thus the saying "I could give a tinkers cuss!" Meaning the lowest type of expression
Hello Jon from Arizona! I remember being gifted a hardcover copy of the book about 1972. Got my first library card in 1969. I kept that book throughout multiple moves, but it was lost in a flood. How wonderful to see some of the original illustrations in my lost book in your video! I loved your entire video, but almost wept at some of the old illustrations. Thank you so much for your research on your videos: this is why you are one of my favorites!❤
I think the reason Grandpa Joe could suddenly get up and dance and everything when Charlie found that golden ticket was because he got such joy from being able to go into the chocolate factory with Charlie. Before that he was depressed. Afterwards, he felt like a kid again.
My general characterization of all of the Roald Dahl stories is: They're horror stories for kids. The notion that they're all rooted in his own childhood trauma is fitting, but kinda sad.
Are you kidding me, Grandpa Joe makes the entire movie what it is, he's the one that gives Charlie the sense he can be somebody in this world. And that he deserves what everyone else deserves and he is worthy just like everybody.
"makes the entire movie what it is"-- no, that's just ridiculous. It's fine to appreciate him as a character but don't bother doing the thing where you pretend to be smart by citing some side detail and pretending like it's the most-important thing in the work. He's a supporting character, not somebody driving the story.
fr. i never got the sense he was anything but that - people who assume anything nasty and negative about characters, especially when it comes to things they dont understand like disability & old age
One of the few things I remember from reading the book when I was a kid was Wanka found the Oompa Loompas starving and eating bowls of mashed catapillers. He offered the tribe to work for him and he would feed them thier staple food chocolate.
There's nothing wrong with exploring the book's original depiction of the Loompas. These are exactly the conversations that we need to have instead of pretending events never happened.
Soooooooo people were upset because they were black, he makes them white and the seething stops. Interesting, so we're dwarves, cavemen, leprechauns AND oompa loompas and don't complain. You're right, we shouldn't pretend this doesn't happen.
I read the original books as a child (33 years old now), both Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and James and the Giant Peach. My mom had the copies from when she was a child and I believe she still has them. They both were great, maybe a little creepy or weird at times, but that’s what makes them fun and interesting!
So what do you think of the movies? I read the books as a kid and loved them. But I never liked either of the movies. Gene Wilder seemed creepy and hyper to me and Johnny Depp was just NO. I'm usually very good at separating the movie from the book, but I never liked either movie.
The angle of seven children could've been very interesting if Roald was going for a seven deadly sin approach. Augustus: Gluttony, which caused him to overindulge early and put himself in harms way needlessly. Violet: Pride, due to over competitive behavior and dare devil streak, she went out of her way to try out the experimental gum despite Willy's warnings. Veruka: Greed, ever impulsive, and desiring more when she sees something flashy and amazing. And on the spot, she'll want it, even after being told no by a higher authority than her father. Mike: Sloth, For doing the least amount of notable things in any incarnation of the series. Not even actively trying to find the golden ticket, instead his parents just so happen to find a bar with a golden ticket in it. Being possibly one of the only two kids to genuinely luck out alongside Charlie. Only losing because of his addiction to electronic entertainment and the possibility of trying out Willy's machine on himself. The other two kids could've been Wrath, who's temperament and impatience could cost them their spot early on after Augustus. And Lust, who could serve as our big bad, and has every intention of making it out big by the end anyway by planning on giving their Gobstopper to Slugworth should they lose. But become distraught in the big reveal of Slugworth's true nature as Willy's secret employee and instead attempt an escape from the factory with their Gobstopper to sell to someone else. Only for chaos to ensue, and they get put in a precarious position where their life is in danger and only Charlie can save them. But they would have to choose between their life or the Gobstopper. And obviously, they choose to live, giving Charlie the win. Charlie: Envy, but not in the way you think. Charlie was the one who went in with essentially nothing and had everything to gain from this excursion. Knowing this, Charlie had to be tested for his true character to see if he was truly worthy of anything, as someone like Charlie could've been tempted by all manner of things that would allow him to rise above his station. But instead, Charlie rejects all temptations by sticking to his virtues and giving his Gobstopper back to Willy, proving his worthiness.
That's an interesting proposition and would certainly work, once fleshed out. I'm focusing on the "character" of Charlie though. What builds a person's character, especially a young child? Their parents certainly have the most influence over them and they learn how to behave from their parents. So wouldn't your version really be a statement about parenting? All the parents, save Charlie's grandpa were just the worst types of people and their children were extensions of _them._ Certainly too difficult a subject for a children's story, but that theme could be subtly placed in the background for the adults in the audience to ponder while children giggle at Oompa Loompas and fantasize about eating Candy Land.
Fun fact: Gene Wilder actually went to watch the Tim Burton's version of the movie and he hated it so much that he literally held campaigns to boycott it, despite the fact that Tim Burton's version is closer and more true to the source material than that 1971 fever dream version
And ironically Roald Dahl's widow has said that if he had been alive to see Tim Burton's version he would've loved it and I can see why, I think it brings to life Dahl's source material wonderfully, it's very faithful while having it's own flair - it feels like a Tim Burton movie! And a lot of people seem to forget that it is NOT a remake of the 1971 movie, it is just another adaptation of the same source material.
Fun fact: The foam used to spurt out in the “Wonka Wash” scene was poisonous. It was made from basic fire extinguishers and was a potent skin irritant, so after shooting the scene, the actors’ skin puffed up and reportedly required several days off set to receive medical treatment and recover.
Fire extinguisher foam was also used to make snow in It's a Wonderful life in 1946 albeit mixed with soap flakes and sugar. It replaced the cornflake and asbestos method of snow making until the later half of the 20th century.
Thats PFOA or PFAS. Great fact. Wish they figured out then how bad it is for health! Its now in every body and more falling in the rain. It causes cytokine storms, like what killed people during covid, and other immune system hyper-reactivity reactions. Its absorbed and dosent leave the body so builds up and is a multi system toxin. Now shown to attach to DNA and weaken it. The tin man in the OZ movies suffered permanently from fine ground aluminum paste makeup . - Yet we bake goods with aluminum baking soda! I think it damaged his kidneys when the metal was absorbed through his skin. Kidneys are tasked with removing toxins along with the liver so are the first damaged. Heart and brain are toxin sensitive too. One study showed immediate neurofibulary tangles in the brain of rabbits when aluminum was injected- but we still use foil on food. You can buy metal coated balls to decorate cakes etc... Inflammation reactions are what people actually die from so we should watch for inflammatory effects and avoid anything causing it.
I grew up with Dahl's stories and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my favorite, and I loved the Gene Wilder version in the movies. With two young grandsons (age one and four), when I heard that the books were going to be "sanitized" and changed my wife and I quickly bought his entire works to get them before any changes, so our grandkids would be able to read the same versions we did. Oh, and we saw "Wonka" on opening night and it was truly a delightful prequel to Wilder's version of the character.
I consider myself a bit of a sensitivity writer, I’ve done a wide variety of research to learn how to best portray people of different cultures, people of color, lgbtq+, disabilities, and even DID. And I would NEVER make such changes as Poffin did. I remember being made to read a story, I think Shakespeare, by them in class. And hating how boring it was. I thought “this story was praised?” Only to read the original Othello and being enraptured; all thanks to a teacher that insisted on giving her class banned books to read. Kids should read the original story, faults and all, and be taught the context of when that story was written. Proper representation in writing means correcting misconceptions and erasing the damage caused by decades of hate, creating a more understanding and peaceful society. Representation encourages creative freedom and new stories to be made. Erasing the ‘bad’ things because something is too ‘violent’ for children isn’t helpful but harmful, unnecessary censorship. Kids need to know it’s ok to talk and ask about simple things like appearance and differences. They need to hear actual ‘bad’ things like slavery to learn from it. For “those that don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it”. Of course none of us want to traumatize children, and I’m not saying to expose them to the most violent thing ever. But telling kids about dark topics within reason (like say starving), is important in creating a very empathetic child that’s conscious on how they treat others.
I've always thought that kind of censorship originated in a conservative effort to cancel out genuine progressive narratives by arranging that people misunderstand them (albeit not necessarily consciously). But I won't insist on it.
@@Ryanthesiren I can't say I'm a fan of "sensitivity writing," but I appreciate that even people like you who clearly identify as "leftists" can see the danger of censorship. I personally think censorship of any kind is a monstrous thing. If I had children, I would encourage them to explore all kinds of literature, while also urging them to "know thyself" and refrain from reading any material they felt unready for. Kids are smarter than you think. They can make decisions on their own. I honestly believe that anything short of hardcore porn should be available to everyone, regardless of age.
I think there's a common misconception that you and many others like you share that's evident in this comment. The people who are seeking to censor old books are extremists that don't represent the bulk of what people are trying to do today (rather attempting to appeal to those they clearly don't understand). Sensitivity writing and, by extension, "leftist" beliefs and actions solely seek to ensure a more equitable and fair future. The bulk of the censorship that happens these days and in these circles is in regards to bigots whose words or actions are clearly malicious and can cause harm or even encourage harm against certain groups. It's like I like to say about Christians. If you want to believe in a pagan storm god, more power to you. If you start calling for violence against those who share your beliefs or start enacting legislation to strip rights away from those who don't fall in line with the life you want to lead, we have a problem. Censorship is necessary, it all just boils down to context. @@marvinhaines9297
My older brother saw the Gene Wilder version in the original run when he was little. It gave him nightmares. Dreams of being sucked up in tubes and such. To this day he gives a shiver when you even mention Oompa-loompas.
I watched the gene wilder version once when i was a kid, the blueberry scene scarred me, I have never had a blueberry in my life, I never will, and I stopped eating anything blue, gum was fine for now because I usually only had minty gum and it was white not blue, then as a teenager I watched the Johnny depp version on accident (my friend put it on) and it was much worse and bigger so I added gum to the no no list, on top of blueberries, and blue food items. Never ever will I eat gum again 🥶 (it’s been 15 years)
I am a giant Malcolm in the middle fan so the fact that you used candy man from that episode Francis and his military brothers were singing it made my whole day because it’s my birthday and I was have a shitty day. This made me smile ear to ear ❤ thanks Mr Solo
Thank you soooo much for your honesty of the childhood story/film, which I've viewed them all, at least those which you shown. Thanks for your show, share and perspective
I was 8 in 1984, I would go to the library on my way home from. School and vividly remember reading Charlie and the chocolate factory and Charlie and the glass elevator, I adored the illustrations and would read them for hours over and over. They were so intreaging to my imagination. Very few books I recall from then but those two stuck all these years.
I'm about 2 years younger than you and now I'm questioning which version I would have read. I don't remember the ooopma loopas being described as "rosy skinned" but the description matching the illustrations. So it must have been an older version somehow, even though I also owned copies. I'm so confused now, lol.
I think we watched different movies, because Gene's Wonka always seemed like he'd have zero problems with child murder. Depp's Wonka was kind of the same but with a touch of confusion like he'd also never actually seen a child in real life before.
I took my baby brother to this movie in 1971. I was 14, he was 5. I was so bored I could barely stand it. Our parents never would have taken me to a movie like this, and I never understood the children's movie genre, but my brother, 58, now, I hope remembers.
Gloop's original casting as a German boy was likely a decision based on their filming the movie in Munich, Germany, and Michael Böllner, who played him, later recalled in an interview for the film's DVD special features that his mother had answered a casting advertisement in the paper.
Glup could be Germanized version of Polish word głup (meaning stupid). And yeah I haven't heard of anyone bearing such surname but I have heard of some really weird ones so it kinda makes sense.
While Augustus Gloop wasn't explicitly German in the book, I'm curious whether there was a connection between him and Augustus from Heinrich Hoffmann's "Der Struwwelpeter." Dahl cited this book as a major influence. Both works are basically a bunch of stories about children meeting horrific fates due to their own misbehavior. Augustus (called Kaspar in the original German) was a chubby boy who refused to eat his soup and consequently starved to death. Dahl certainly would have been familiar with the character, and I wonder if that's why he chose the name.
Could all the offended people please move to a random island in middle of nowhere and just be offended by each other and just let the rest of us enjoy things
"They sent out the sensitivity readers to plant their flag in the moral high ground so everyone can see their virtue from far and wide" Oh, that was beautiful.
You hit the nail on the head! That gang of anonymous "Insensitivity Censors" managed to deface a classic; just like Thomas Bowdler did with the works of Shakespeare in the early 19th Century.
I’m a little nervous for the prequel. I think to get a background story on an iconic character has the potential to either add to the mythos or ruin it
@@DrDolan2000 Hollywood being what it is…..just wants to capitalize on the popularity of the character. It was like with the Star Wars prequels. Darth Vader is iconic so they wanted to capitalize on that with his own backstory
I personally think it'll ruin it. Willy Wonka isn't supposed to be "whimsical" in my opinion. I've seen so many deep dives on both movies and I've realized, the prequel is just continuing a story Roald Dahl didn't even want. And technically it's a sequel, cuz Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a remake not the "second movie to the first one" if that makes since. I just don't know, I don't think I'll be impressed. Maybe if Tim Burton was the director🤷🏽♀️.
Even the first movie, which is what the prequel is based off of despite being FAR less accurate to the book, has an origin story about the Oompa-Loompas that doesn't match up at all.
I can understand why Roald Dahl changed the Oompa Loompa's. He thought it was a bit of a mistake on his end and changed it up. But what the publishing company did was just messed up.
Yeah there’s actually valid reasoning for Dahl changing the Oompa Loompa’s. But the publisher just got scared of offending anyone which I don’t get because I’ve never heard of anyone offended by the book. I’m sure they exist but not enough to pressure the publisher to make such changes. Doesn’t make much sense to me because if a kid reads the book he’ll likely want to see the movie anyway and will see how the characters are depicted appearance wise
@@jayscott4118 I have a second edition of the book and it basically describes the Oompa Loompas as little black people who were found living in tribal situations and who are paid with cacao. It was a bit of a shock after having grown up with a 2005ish Quentin Blake illustrated version. Then again, their presentation was still likeable, but I could see why some people might have an issue. But it didn’t feel like it would encourage racism, since the Oompa Loompas are their own race of people and are quirky, friendly, and likeable. They just felt very Dahlian and fantastical, so there didn’t feel like there was a connection to reality. But those changes actually made them more interesting, so I’m fine with them. However, I don’t agree with the recent changes. ‘Fat’ for example, is a physical descriptor. I’m not really sure how you’re supposed to describe Augustus Gloop without using that word, since not only is it part of his character, but other words for ‘fat’ would probably be more offensive. And ‘white as a sheet’… that’s a metaphor with zero racial connection and which describes a bloodless appearance. When one of my friends, who is black, heard it, her reaction was “BS”. Things are far too touchy these days, to the point where it is rare to see heterosexual white (non-ginger) men and women in commercial product advertising unless it is a product for them, eg. blonde hair dye. You’ll still see a few, but not many. Representation is not a bad thing, but it should be accurate. While I don’t agree with the following view, there is a growing feeling amongst the young population that your future isn’t very good if you’re an average white male without a disability or being part of the LGBT+ community. That kind of thought is very scary for several reasons and should not be the case. The scariest part is that this thought is being encouraged on an industrial basis. I know of one government agency which requires a quiz as part of training. The answer to the question “what is equality?” was apparently giving minorities preferential treatment. That is discrimination. Equality is providing equal treatment to everyone regardless of any factors. Equity is what the aim should be, which is doing the equivalent of providing a child three boxes to stand on, a teen two boxes, and an adult one box because they only need one box to see over the same fence as the other two. It is scary that the government has actually started approving this kind of thing.
Yeah, I think there's a difference when the author him/herself makes a change and when someone else forces it. Diane Duane did the same thing when a book she'd written about an autistic child pre-internet turned out to be way off-base as the perspectives of autistic people started showing up online: she went back and changed things to make them more accurate and respectful in light of the information she now had that she hadn't had when she first wrote her book. If someone else had forced it though, I wouldn't have liked the imposition.
@@Emily.R.Wof course it’s offensive which is why they changed it… what encouraged that thought in 1960s be foreal 🤦🏽♂️ you’re more offended by Augustus choosing to be fat and saying that’s offensive something he can change but having Africans work for chocolate and having them think they were made of chocolate isn’t offensive 😂😂 joke
I was a fat kid (and a fat adult) but never felt threatened by the description of Augustus Gloop. What happened to these kids was a result of their actions, no their appearances and I saw it more like cautionary tales. You could argue that if the appearance has nothing to do with the consequences, then it doesn't matter if it is included or not and leave it to the kids imagination. You could, but how will they learn the variety that exists? And since people tend to fear the unknown, how will they learn having tolerance and compassion for something different?
To me, the broad sweep of the different endings reflect the time and culture of each. In the book, written in welfare-state Britain, the highest virtue was doing as you were told, and so Charlie wins by never stepping out of line. In the USA of the 60s-70s, the highest virtue was to treat others honestly, and so Charlie won by refusing to betray Wonka. By the Burton version, society's focus was on resolving emotional issues, so Charlie wins by helping Wonka resolve his own twisted psyche.
I watched a documentary on candy and they said Nestles candy gave the money to make the movie but made them change the name so they could make the chocolate and help with its sales.
The infamous Mr. Dahl has been a great influence in my life. Growing up on his original work sparked my enthusiasm for reading as a child, he made me an author. First, growing up as a little brown girl, in an all brown school, we all knew that Rahl Dahl rewrote the Oompa Loompas to refrain from depicting Africans in slavery. We didn’t care because we knew who we were. Sensitivity groups are the reason the world is upside down, now. Mr. Dahl showed us the real world and helped many of us hold on to our imagination, which is the key to the reason why many adults don’t succeed. As a writer, I can attest to the fact that it’s hard to share your creativity with a world that’s so judgmental and half as talented. Mr. Dahl made me loud, righteous and brave in a world that’s meant to be scary, but if you grow up reading the books we had in the 90’s, nothing would scare you. Shout out Mrs. Judy Blume as well 🙌🏾
YES, that is true what you say--"Sensitivity groups are the reason the world is upside down, now" added to that is the modern media complex that PROFITS from all the drummed up chaos!
The first thing I thought when I heard of the forced rewriting of the book was "oh, so there already were -woke idiots- **cough** _Sensitivity groups_ around at the time".
You got that right. My mother was a genealogist and historian for a small town in Upstate NY and when she spoke about the Underground Railroad she was ridiculed for being a white woman "teaching blacks about black history" as a sensitivity group put it. Funny thing about the offended sensitivity group...they were all white and the people who showed up to hear her talk were all black, and they were confused about how it was offensive.
I found it strange that Dept acted kinda like Micheal Jackson being Jack Sparrow. I like the Tim Burton UmpaLumpa, they are so awesome because they can do ANYTHING from labor workers, technician to doctors! LoL!
As someone who grew up on the books and never saw either of the movies, I really enjoyed this overview to get a sense of the differences between them, as well as some nostalgia from the original illustrations.
Edit: It seems like certain individuals are choosing to get personally offended at my critiques of Burton's Wonka movie and deliberately ignoring the numerous positive things I praised it for. GUYS... the movie is FINE and if it's your favorite of the two that's great! I am personally not a fan, so watching it 5+ times in the process of writing this episode was a bit of a slog so I incorporated a few jokes about it into the presentation. If it means that much to you, I'm deeply sorry for making fun of Johnny Depp's hair. Can we be friends again? 💜
🇬🇷 Join me on the Messed Up Origins Field Trip to GREECE! www.trovatrip.com/trip/europe/greece/greece-with-jon-scudieri-sep-2024 🇬🇷
Have fun!! Take stories!
I can't go, I have school. Have fun!
Please do Treasure Island
You should see the Tom and Jerry version.
The idea of climbing over the gate in the nut room is such an American thing!
I think Grandpa Joe was mad depressed and Charlie was his only joy. So when Charlie got the last ticket it gave him something to live for, at least for a little bit.
I really like this interpretation
Maybe, but I never liked the 4 old people draining the family's resources and not even trying to help.
@@skaervan
I'm British. I would imagine that in a climate even harsher and further north than the one I'm used to, everyone was expected to pull their weight as far as possible.
@@harpo345 Me and my friends used to joke about it; Can't get off his ass until there's free candy. Made the movie funnier.
@@harpo345They are old. What are they supposed to do?
If I went into a museum and started painting tops over the exposed breast of classic painting and sculptures, I would be arrested. These people changing books and stories from the past are no different. We should not force our current morals on works of the past, or we erase our ability to see both our growth and, at times, our mistakes.
Too right. I read the Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn books at school. We don’t have to agree with the negative sentiments expressed by some of the characters in the book, but we can learn from the past
@@patricianunes3521 I think it's important to not change them. It shows how the times have changed and what we've improved upon or hadn't improved. It even shows us what has stayed the same. Changing them really limits the learning we do with books. Instead, there's nothing to learn.
@@xladyfayre Totally agree.
I agree with you, but I'll note that in the past, many works of art were censored (e.g., fig leaves added to cover genitalia).
But the original works are still accessible. By your analogy, what's actually happening is that people are making a new version of the artwork that originally had no top, and because they recognise that some people will be really upset by the artwork having no top they're giving it a top so it'll be accessible to everyone - not just the people who don't feel troubled by seeing an artwork without a top. Meanwhile the people who want to see the artwork without a top on can still see it, and probably get a bit of extra enjoyment out of thinking they're better than other people because they prefer the edgy original, because it's still there. It hasn't gone anywhere, because the thing being adjusted isn't the original work.
23:23 Fun fact! In the Wilder version when he started singing, the actors actually had no idea that he was going to start singing. So their look of confusion and slight terror is real.
That’s hilarious! Gene Wilder, what a gem. It’s one of my very favourite scenes
😂
I love the book, but I think the movie is way better because of the actors and of course the genuine feeling.
I thought it was just the room they never saw, not that they also didn't know about the next musical number.
The fact that Veruca's father is incapable and powerless to intervene for her is THE WHOLE POINT. Her father's character totally explains how Veruca got that way.
That is a good point.
That’s actually a good point. He was a spineless pushover and she took FULL advantage of that. But I do think he could have panicked more, maybe did a little jig as he struggles with what to do
I will say this about the squirrel gate: I always interpreted this as the father not being one for taking action or putting himself in harm’s way because he’s used to throwing money at his problems. While likely concerned for Varuca, he wasn’t brave enough to jump that little gate and face the dozens of trained squirrels.
That’s the way I saw it as well!
That's also the way I saw it. It even shows him hesitate to reach down the hole and grab her as he looks at everyone else searching for someone else to do it for him. I think it also demonstrates the parents who show their care and worry for their children on the outside but inside they would rather that someone else would do all that for them. There are just so many ways to interpret that scene which is why I loved that scene so much.
I thought Tiny Squirrel Gate showed how ineffective, cowardly and weak his character was. I've always thought it was really obvious too. XD
But in the original he got sent down the golden Goose rotten egg hatch like varuca also.. so weird they showed him scared to help in the new film...
@@kristinacoughlin1063 yep, as soon as original mr salt realized the garbage chute went to the furnace he didn't even hesitate to jump head-first down the hole with his daughter. slightly better father than burton's mr salt but he still sucks
Fun fact: in the first movie, none of the actors had seen the chocolate room set before shooting, so their expressions are 100% genuine, as it was their first time seeing it.
You know what, that fact was fun. Thank you for using it correctly 🙂
Id love to check where you found this out? Considering thats what i do, iv never heard of an actor ever see a set while shooting for the first time. How it works is they come into the set, theres a private blocking, where they practice there lines, there marks, which is where they stop and walk to for camera to measure and mark how there focus is lined up with the cameras there acting for. Then theres public blocking where the whole crew of 100+ returns thrn they act it out for us so we know where to set up lights and move furniture. Then when thats all set up they return and we shoot everyhing practiced prior, thats how it works for every scene shot in film. Anyways let me know, thanks.
It’s funny but I somehow knew this I had to of read it a long time ago I just can’t remember where 😂 seeing your comment brought back the memory of reading it somewhere I think it was one of those articles that say funny facts about movies you didn’t know
@@impactdrifter its "THEIR" ffs 😅
@@SpydersByte Right?!?
There's that chapter in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory where Charlie exerts himself as little as possible because he realizes he (and his family) are starving to death.
Seriously. I read that book when I was 10 and I had never read anything that disturbing before. It kind of blew my little mind.
As a kid who grew up pretty poor - I identified with Charlie - but also used his level of poverty as a bit of a leveling metric for my own. Well at least I have something other than cabbage soup every night for dinner. We’ll at least my grandparents live in their own house etc 🤣
I agree totally
it was this book that taught me dont waste food,
My dad got this far and wouldnt read the rest of the book to me, because in his childhood he was under occupation in Guernsey and this was a little to real.
I can relate.
"...the offended always forget they have the option not to partake." Truer words were never spoken. Well spoken Jon!
The problem is getting said offended people to listen!
It seems to kinda be a hobby of their's. Or sport, who can fake the most offended. Sort of a religion, but actually Cult is better description.
yeah but we’re talking about slavery…
Damn straight.
This dude was virtue signaling in parts of the video trying to fit into the pop social beliefs to look like a good person. He literally got offended in the video and tried to prove that he isn't a bad person.
One look at the video length, and you already know Jon was cooking with this one 🍫
I saw it uploaded 45 seconds ago. And there was already one view. The worlds' amazing 🤩
I honestly did not even notice. Was cooking dinner then eating as it played and until I saw your comment I wouldn't have. That's how great a storyteller Jon is.
I didn’t even notice until this comment 😅
The man cooked. 🔥 I didn't know a lot of these facts, even after being a fan of the first 2 movies. Looking forward to more meals. 😋
Right! That peeked my interest as well.
"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed, and sterilized, so you get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!"
I said Good day sir……😂
@@greenmoon8432 that and “et cetera, et cetera” is how I’ve been ending arguments since the early 90s when I was in jr high 🤣🤣🤣 my favorite part of the movie
When I read the book as a child or watched the 1970’s version I never got the impression that Grandpa Joe was a scumbag, or deadbeat, but an older man suffering from bad depression from living a life of hardship and seeing 2 generations after him having to go through the same problems without any hope. And Charlie finding the golden ticket was what lifted him out of it.
This is what I saw as well.
That is likely the intended interpretation, it just doesn't really feel like that's the case in the movies, lol
Maybe I interpreted it correctly as a child because I was growing up in similar circumstances minus the grandparents living with us.
Grandpa just had no purpose in life anymore.
He totally bothered me. Even as a kid I saw him as being selfish.
33:50 I think Wonka tells Charlie that the button has never been pressed to add an element of wonder and curiosity for Charlie , rather than him never having used it before
I think the little gate that did stop the father from saving his daughter, is a pretty accurate metaphor for this kind of parents.
They will give their children everything they don't want and need but no love. Wouldn't save them from predators etc.
I think it's a great scene.
I do too. I think it is actually meant for us to get to this conclusion: he'll pay any money so she won't whine and bother him, but will not break a sweat to save her, as her disappearing, in a sense is as good as paying for things that will make her quiet and unnoticeable...
Well, I think if he DID climb over the gate, then the squirrels would have attacked him too. Possibly, I think he was just paralyzed with fear, and all he could do was watch in horror.
He had no guts..... Just money.
@@lex_one-two Indeed.
I was thinking the same and it could well have been purposefully filmed that way by Burton to demonstrate that very point.
Fun fact, the reason that the guests reaction seems so genuine when they enter the chocolate room in the 1971 version is because it is. They didn't allow the actors to see the set until they were ready to film that shot. So, you are seeing their genuine reaction to seeing the set for the first time.
That's not true, I was there
Dang how old or you now? @@GeneralLou
Same with the trip and roll in the beginning.
While this is widely thought, most have since come clean and said that they did peek 🙂
Whoa! Awesome trivia nugget! Thanks for sharing
I love the social satire in the first half of the 1971 film, especially the cop show spoof about the woman who has to give up her Wonka bars to save her husband. Comedy is always at its funniest when you mix (somewhat) serious stuff in with it.
As a kid, I found the first half of the movie to be boring, but as an adult, it is perhaps my favorite part; the woman who needs to give up her case of Wonka bars to save her husband, the scientist using the computer to find the location of a golden ticket (and failing), the auction, the classroom scenes, that guy from Paraguay who made the fake ticket, all great.
EDIT: I forgot that guy on the therapist's coach being pressured by his counselor to reveal where he found the golden ticket in his dream LOL.
@@bigtimetimmyjim6486 Same, I found a lot of the beginning of the 71 version boring as a kid, and being so young, most of the jokes between the adults flew over my head, lol. I do remember thinking that nearly every single adult in the film (with the exception of Charlie's family) were unnecessarily mean, but as an adult I realized that is intentional and now the first half is probably my favorite. The scene with the scientist and his computer cracks me up especially when he angrily says "I'm now telling the machine exactly what it can do with a golden ticket!! " or something along those lines lol
This will always be my favorite book. I read it as a child and, when Charlie realized he had the Golden Ticket, my imagination exploded with pictures. I'll never forget that. I've been an avid reader my whole life as a result.
Amazing !
The performance wilder gives in the tunnel is absolutely unforgettable.
@@sepulchral. Was it? I mostly saw it as a fun change up to things and then they show "the bad guy" and call him out. I mean, they're just bugs. And if you didn't know nature was all about things killing other things by the time you were sentient, that seems more disturbing.
@@sepulchral. *you're
To be fair, Wonka doesn't screw Charlie out of the prize at the end; he clearly violated the terms of the contract by drinking fizzy lifting drinks, a mistake very similar to that committed by the other 4 kids. He does deserve the prize at the end as a result of not being vindictive over the disqualification and surrendering the gobstopper, but it only serves to affirm a part of his character that was called into question by his earlier actions.
Preach
Needing a girlfriend huh timbo
It was a bit of an odd decision though. The movie was made to promote sales of chocolate and the script isn't perfect. It was really the music and Gene Wilder's whimsical performance that turned a movie that flopped at the box office into a cult classic. The script have issues and the budget was really low even for the time (in today's money it cost 20 million dollars).
But it is a musical with great music, no one can take that from it. Burton's movie is a lot closer to the book though (but Depp's weird style and somewhat strange performance doesn't exactly help it).
And that's the younger generations version of reality. 🤦♀️
@@allend5399 My last two girlfriends were a librarian and an English teacher, if anything they made me more of a media analyst. 🤣
Also notice how each time a kid goes missing, theres only enough room on the ship for those who remain, meaning wonka knew when a character would disappear.
Wow.. I never actually thought about that . How funny!.. lol
Yeah the whole thing was planned from the beginning. I saw the video matpat did and it makes so much more sense now.
he knew they would dissapear b/c he took them to rooms that catered to their specific vices. he told Charlie that he was just lucky to be there lol.
Each room was set up in the original movie for each kid. Slugworth was the culprit to send them to the after life as willy Wonka is a bad wizard or he's the devil. The kids had gobstoppers before being on the boat which was their token to be ferried over to purgatory and work your way outta pandoras box. You can't go back to get out you have to move forward and the oopma loompas are little demons in disguise and when you die their they sing in sync so you're in hell.
Every room was made to test each individual to see how Evil they REALLY were lol
I FULLY AGREE with what Jon Solo said about preserving the original version, rather than the edition that had their souls sucked out of them dry. I would rather have my child read esteemed award-winning books from an esteemed, but imperfect author, than rather an edition of his books that were manipulated and had the souls sucked out entirely. At scene 48:43!!
Two interesting facts about Gene Wilder's acting. It was his idea to walk limping with the cane up to the gate and to fall forward and flip to the gate. Several lines Gene Wilder said in the movie were out of impulse at the time, namely "Candy is Dandy, but Liquor is Quicker."
Yes we know
@@interestings7866 I didn't know, but it sounds like something he would do. Gene Wilder was amazingly talented and funny. Young Frankenstein is my favorite comedy, and therefore one of my favorite films. I saw the Wonka film as a child and frankly I found parts of it frightening, especially the boat ride, buy also the unpredictability of the Wonka character. Think it has to do with my childhood that set off warning bells "unsafe/unreliable adult". I also did not fully understand that some of the punished children weren't dead. I'm an HSP though, highly sensitive personality.
@@lynninpainThe walking with a limp/falling bit was actually Wilder wanting to show Wonka As untrustworthy, as his first appearance is one of deceit but played for laughs, I Loved his Wonka a lot
Wilder's Wonka compares to Heath Ledger's Joker imho. Both great performances and a bit psycho. Lol.
Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.” is legendary
He puts his nose in the air and smells the chocolate from the factory, I do the same thing when I walk past my local dispensary 💀😂 you earned a sub for that
Used to be a giant Nabisco factory nearby, far enough to not smell it all the time and going by was always a treat. Now its closed, of course.
Bimbo Bread factory where I'm from 😊. Mmmmmmm....
I know right?😂
@@HeatherDavis-k9bsame! Not in my town but about 20 min away lol
Facts haha I liked it immediately after he said that😭
As someone with major mobility issues due to an injury, i can relate to grandpa. We went on a cruise last year, and although painful, I was much more active fueled by excitement
Glad you had a good time even with a injury
I was like one of those nameless injured ppl you read about after a shooting but soon forget unless you know them personally-- I am crippled and with missing jaw bone and many procedures later chronic pain and keg muscle atrophy. My biggest lament is missing biking. Well, I mean besides the obvious walking and being able to reach everyday things, lol! ;) It IS amazing how an outting, or especially a visit and hearing happy news from someone else- and being genuinely happy for THEM - can give you that little bit of a lift. I can totally relate!! Stay strong, friend!
Did we forget the 1971 version? Joe didn't want to get out of bed. Joe didn't want to go to the factory. Charlie pulled Joe's legs out and made him get up.
Gene Wilder was so good. His subtle humor was truly unmatched. One of my favorite actors of all time.
There’s a short series on Netflix that depicts four of Dahl’s short stories directed by Wes Anderson and it’s beautiful but also definitely highlights how weird some of Dahl’s works could be
I loved these shorts. I grew up reading the swan about a million times and seeing it be put on a screen as such a faithful adaptation was amazing. The final shot, though not book-accurate, was haunting
Honestly… Wes Anderson is the perfect director for Dahl’s stories. They’re both weird in exactly the same way. I bet Dahl would have LOVED Wes.
Please state the name of the series.....
@@markbills4122 they are offered as individual shorts so are not grouped as usual.. but the stories featured are Poison, the Swan, the wonderful story of Henry Sugar, and The Rat Catcher
@@PariahQuailagreed and to me I think Tim Burton did a good job for Charlie and the chocolate factory but Wes Anderson was great for fantastic Mr fox.
Oompa Loompas are orange and green because Mel Stuart improvised it on the spot when asked to change their skin color. He mentioned this in his book called Pure Imagination.
So this decision was made before Dahl had changed them in the book? If so, that would explain the difference between the movie and the revised version.
@@KasumiKenshirou yes
Thanks!
Nothing was more magical to me than Gene Wilder and being born in 1971 I don't know how many times I sat in front of the TV year after year glued to the most unique movie I've ever seen !
Gene Wilder played some of the most memorable characters. I loved the Frisco Kid especially.
I'm actually excited to see this movie version because I am a huge fan of Paul King, the writer/director. He wrote and directed both paddington films which, while not straight adaptations, kept the spirit and intent of the author and the characters were lovingly represented in the films. I hope that King has done the same thing for Willy Wonka that he did for Paddington. The Paddington films remain, in my opinion, some of the best family films ever made.
Also like to see how Wonka’s rivals - Fickelgrüber, Prodnose and Slugworth - are going to be portrayed
I grew up reading Dahls books. I dont think I’d have the crazy wide imagination i have if it wasn’t for him. Definitely played a huge role in my childhood.
The videos bs
Yea same this video is very much bs
@silencedlamb__ The thumbnail lets you believe that the story is more messed up than it is, which isn't the case. so I am right in my assumption if that makes sense
@silencedlamb__ But overall, the videos clickbait
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my hands down favorite book as a child.
As a black child I never once gave the original portrayal of the Ompa Loompas a second thought.
I love how in the old movie, the abandoned factory had this creepy vibe. Every abandoned building/factory with smoke stacks I see still makes me think of Wonka's factory
and I thought it was just me.
Wait I'm not sure a bustling factory with hundreds of workers and a crazy inventor living inside qualifies as "abandoned".
Still I know what you mean, it looks desolate from the outside.
I am 42 years old, and have loved Dahl since the first time i read his book, James and the Giant Peach, in 3rd grade. As soon as I had finished that book, I went in search of anything else he had written, leading me to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I now own every one of his books. I read each one to my husband while traveling with him when he was an over the road truck driver. His favorite is Danny Champion of the World. Dahls life story is one of his own amazing adventures! When i heard the news that they were to edit his work, i was completely heart broken. And I was thankful I already owned my own copies. My daughter grew up on these stories. It never fazed her in one small amount. She found them just as fun and entertaining as I did. And when I think of Dahl and his works, I only find joy. And really, I dont understand people who wanted to change his work. He meant no harm in his words, and they know that. But, for a little publicity, I guess people will say whatever they want to get attention.
For me, Gene Wilder absolutely smashes his performance. As a child I totally believed he was really Willy Wonka!
I remember the first time I saw a Wonka bar in the store. I told my mom, "See! He is real!"
I love his opening scene when he pretends to need a cane and falls over to say hello to the crowd. Never gets old. RIP Gene ❤
@@crystinamarie1he came up with the idea and apparently it was so important it became a condition of him accepting the role.
@@dj_aj908 it's so iconic.
Probably cause he was
At 7:41 the boy in the red shirt in the Gene Wilder version is Peter Stuart, son of director Mel Stuart. The charracter the boy portrays is named Winkleman. In the 2023 Wonka, an actress named Sophie Winklemann portrays the Countess. What a coincidence!
We know the book is set in the UK. The reason is because of the coin Charlie finds that allows him to buy the chocolate bars that contain the golden ticket. The book clearly states that this coin was a 50p piece. That places the story squarely in the UK.
I think the book was written before decimalisation so that's probably a later edit.
@@lucasoheyze4597 Possibly but there's also the matter of the change he got, all British coins. The shop keeper saying he'll get a "Stomach Ache" if he ate it so fast. That's a very British thing to say. The fact Dahl was a resident of the UK means he'd naturally place the story there. If they edited it to post-decimalization British coin names, then the previous pre-decimalization coin names would have still been British so the editing is actually irrelevant. In the sequel, where the US President asks what aliens eat, his aid says "Mars Bars", a confection that would have been unknown in the US again demonstrating that Dahl's mind was firmly rooted in Britain even when writing about another country. The illustrations in the sequel clearly show an outline of the British Isles when the Great Glass Elevator is zooming into space from the factory. I could go on and on, but there are literally dozens of things that Dahl wrote and publishers included that categorically place the story in the UK.
@@spudhead169 I don't disagree with you on it being set in the UK. I'm curious about your stomach ache comment though. I've lived in the US my whole life and so did my parents, and grandparents. We all say stomach ache. I don't feel like it's unique to British people. Am I missing something?
You are absolutely correct to raise the subject of the anonymous sensitivity readers. It did not go down well at all in the U.K. either.
My personal opinion has always been that you can’t learn from history if you hide it under the rug. Pretending anything didn’t happen won’t help anyone. This editing is a good example.
I wouldn't consider this a good example of hiding history. Because there isn't anything wrong with these books to hide in the first place. Its just woke, outrage, cancel culture needing something to be upset about.
I can’t believe that they erased all of this stuff about it. Like, we all know that Augustus Gloop is fat. I always figured it was part of the fact that he was super greedy. Are they all supposed to look exactly the same?
Too concerned with "saftey" and not Liberty. Therefore your Rights get taken away. Hanging on by threads these days, destroying history and replacing it with lies for people who have serious problems with reality.
I actually like the idea of the "honesty test" added to give Charlie a little more protagonist feel. When faced with the choice of getting his family some much needed money in a dishonest way or doing the right thing to continue living in poverty, he chooses the right thing, a huge character moment and one thay cements Charlie as the undeniable hero of the story.
The problem I had with it, is that in the book it said he didn't let anyone into the factory after he reopened it, so to have someone work for him and go outside broke that idea, how did he know this person was loyal?
@revengenerd1 i always interpreted it as either a very close friend or someone who came along later and PROVED his loyalty somehow. But you aint wrong either
Especially since his act of honesty was immediately after being told he lost and would be receiving no reward.
Nothing material would be gained from that act, which Wonka recognized as Charlie's true nature. Hence the 180.
Absolutely nothing is stopping a parent from pre-reading a book
and highlighting the parts they don't like.
Being 62 years old, I did grow up with all of Dhal's stories and found them delightful. Your overview was spot-on with Charlie, as I had read the book well before the first movie came out. Your conclusions about both movies are accurate also, excellent job. Thank you.
Yet you can't spell his name.
Oh spelling Dahl I still loved his equivocal works where things were not ok-
was disappointed by the 1974 version and haven’t bothered with the 2005.
The story is problematic in any case
I think the fact that the father did not make an effort to rescue his daughter even though there was a small barrier was a fitting metaphor. Because when you have money and resources and only offer your child money and resources doesn’t take any effort. But adjusting your life to put your child/ family first is a huge adjustment. So the fact that he did not make any effort to save her is fitting for the amount of effort he made to raise her. I think the kids and their bad behavior was also reflected in how they were raised. So both parents and children needed to make adjustments
" the kids and their bad behavior was also reflected in how they were raised"
Some people are the productive of their environment and upbringing.
I was think the same thing. His solution to everything in life is to toss money at it and in this one situation where he needs to take real action to save his daughter, he's completely stumped
...and then he tumbled in after her, because he had no other resources to "spend"
Ya, nah, it takes a fuckload of effort to make the money that gives the child a good life. This is just mindless Father shaming and mother coddling.
@@hughmungus431Father shaming??? Mother coddling??? Where??? ALL parents in this film (safe for Charlie's) are shown to be bad and the reason their children are narcissistic selfish pricks. There is no gender divide.
I have a theory/opinion about Grandpa Joe. I believe it's a mixture of depression and Munchausen. Think about it the depression comes from losing his beloved job and the Munchausen comes from his family constantly telling him he is to old and fragile to get out of bed..everyone but Charlie that is. When Charlie finds the golden ticket 2 things happen Charlie the one person that doesn't make Joe feel old and fragile wants him to go and 2 he wants him to go visit the one place aka old job that brought grandpa Joe happiness..to me it makes sense that he was able to get out of bed atm ..but that's just me🤷🏽♀️
Honestly that’s not a bad theory.
Not a bad theory, true, but this is a book meant for young kids, not teens, & the likelihood they know anything about those mental conditions is so tiny. So it would be really hard for them to get that analogy.
@tamarasmith9060 it's mostly adults that are upset that Joe was "faking" so the theory is in reference to that
@@tamarasmith9060except kids have depression as well... I did
They were in bed to save energy. That used to be common practice in times of hunger.
37:52 This part of the story just sounds like something out of Five Nights At Freddy’s.
In fact it’s like the fates of Elizabeth and William Afton.
I read the "old school" version 6+ times as a child. There was never anything to compare it with or that surpassed it! I learbed how hysterically funny and clever you could make rhymes by reading the oompa loompa songs again and again. Grade school kids are both kind hearted heros and monsters, and Dahl revealed this to CHILDREN, who were already experiencing this in thier daily lives.
“Square Candy’s that look round” 😂 - God Tier Dad joke
Your previous video on Charlie and the chocolate factory origin was amazing. Deep up the solid work The more messed up the better.
Publishers have been constantly trying to force writers to dull down aspects of sandess, violence and discrimination in kids books for hundreds of years. In the words of Beatrix Potter "The stories I write may contain cute, fuzzy fantastical talking animals, but the world they live in is all too real. Just like the world of the children who read them."
I love both movies. I say that with no "buts" and no irony. I think they're just two different takes on a classic, created at different times and with different sets of tools available to each director. I know a lot of people feel the need to rank one over the other, but I don't. They're just different, is all.
Completely agree.
Completely agree
Agreed!
Same.
I always liked the books and the first movie, but always wished that they had done a film of the second book, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. A lot more action, going into outer space and back to the factory, and even more rooms that hadn't been discussed before.
I'd like to see that too
Sadly Dahl hated the 71 version and then forbid The Great Glass Elevator from ever having an adaptation
@@GhostlyFyredamn it Dahl. The film wasn’t even that different from the book if he saw the Time Burton version he would be praising the 71 classic
I guess he would prefer the Tim Burton version.
I wish Dahl wouldn't have prevented the sequel The Great Glass Elevator from being made into a movie.
Well put. Changing original works because of sensitivity is odd. Many things in history you learned in school is very docile. But truth is brutal. Thank you for your content.
Main thing I remember from reading these books as a kid is that the sequels are even more of a fever dream than the first one. Part of me still thinks I made up Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator
this is honestly so real and sometimes you meet people who havent even heard of it
"We are the music- makers and we are the dreamers of dreams."
That kills me every time! 😂 🤣
I always thought grandpa Joe's recovery was a miracle made for being happy for his grandson winning the ticket.
The gobstobbers in the Wilder version were made of WOOD.
Yurmy woodchips
The "knife man" is not really strange, he's a "tinker" they were quite common in the previous century, particularly in Europe. They would sharpen and sell knives and fix items.
Imagine having a man with a cart of knives knock on your door. And tinkers were considered some of the lowest of the classes of people thus the saying "I could give a tinkers cuss!" Meaning the lowest type of expression
It's not worth a Tinker's damn.
@@bonnieprater5124 exactly!
" I do the same thing, when I'm passing by my local dispensary" 😂
Hello Jon from Arizona!
I remember being gifted a hardcover copy of the book about 1972. Got my first library card in 1969. I kept that book throughout multiple moves, but it was lost in a flood.
How wonderful to see some of the original illustrations in my lost book in your video! I loved your entire video, but almost wept at some of the old illustrations. Thank you so much for your research on your videos: this is why you are one of my favorites!❤
I think the reason Grandpa Joe could suddenly get up and dance and everything when Charlie found that golden ticket was because he got such joy from being able to go into the chocolate factory with Charlie. Before that he was depressed. Afterwards, he felt like a kid again.
My general characterization of all of the Roald Dahl stories is: They're horror stories for kids. The notion that they're all rooted in his own childhood trauma is fitting, but kinda sad.
The thing in the 71 version that unnerved me as a 5 year old was the trauma of seeing a kid sucked into a pipe believing it was to his death.
Grimms' Fairy Tales were also "horror stories for kids" but they also offered important lessons on life.
Read Boy and War, and you can see the threads for his stories
Wait until you hear about Krampus.
James and the Giant Peach.
Great story.
Worth a mention. Though Deep Roy was born in Nairobi, he is of Indian descent and British nationality.
Are you kidding me, Grandpa Joe makes the entire movie what it is, he's the one that gives Charlie the sense he can be somebody in this world. And that he deserves what everyone else deserves and he is worthy just like everybody.
But he also leached off his daughter, spending decades in bed when he in fact could walk
"makes the entire movie what it is"-- no, that's just ridiculous. It's fine to appreciate him as a character but don't bother doing the thing where you pretend to be smart by citing some side detail and pretending like it's the most-important thing in the work. He's a supporting character, not somebody driving the story.
fr. i never got the sense he was anything but that - people who assume anything nasty and negative about characters, especially when it comes to things they dont understand like disability & old age
he's a major character. he is absolutely very important - just because you dont see him as such, doesnt make it so. @@jamescarter3196
@@jamescarter3196 Quite ironic given that you're the one trying to sound smart here...
One of the few things I remember from reading the book when I was a kid was Wanka found the Oompa Loompas starving and eating bowls of mashed catapillers. He offered the tribe to work for him and he would feed them thier staple food chocolate.
There's nothing wrong with exploring the book's original depiction of the Loompas. These are exactly the conversations that we need to have instead of pretending events never happened.
I have a second print of the book and seeing the drawings of the original loompas is like whhaaattt.
Ofcours a white man would say that
Exactly. Context and understanding that things have changed for the better.
I feel like most black ppl would be the first to find it funny
Soooooooo people were upset because they were black, he makes them white and the seething stops.
Interesting, so we're dwarves, cavemen, leprechauns AND oompa loompas and don't complain.
You're right, we shouldn't pretend this doesn't happen.
Amazing video! Love it!
I read the original books as a child (33 years old now), both Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and James and the Giant Peach. My mom had the copies from when she was a child and I believe she still has them. They both were great, maybe a little creepy or weird at times, but that’s what makes them fun and interesting!
So what do you think of the movies? I read the books as a kid and loved them. But I never liked either of the movies. Gene Wilder seemed creepy and hyper to me and Johnny Depp was just NO. I'm usually very good at separating the movie from the book, but I never liked either movie.
Deep Roy killed his role so hard that Tim Burton doubled his pay at the end of production
My favorite TH-camr uploaded a almost hour messed up origin video on my birthday. Thanks jon
The intentions behind the publication/production of this book/movie is far deeper than most people realize
The angle of seven children could've been very interesting if Roald was going for a seven deadly sin approach.
Augustus: Gluttony, which caused him to overindulge early and put himself in harms way needlessly.
Violet: Pride, due to over competitive behavior and dare devil streak, she went out of her way to try out the experimental gum despite Willy's warnings.
Veruka: Greed, ever impulsive, and desiring more when she sees something flashy and amazing. And on the spot, she'll want it, even after being told no by a higher authority than her father.
Mike: Sloth, For doing the least amount of notable things in any incarnation of the series. Not even actively trying to find the golden ticket, instead his parents just so happen to find a bar with a golden ticket in it. Being possibly one of the only two kids to genuinely luck out alongside Charlie. Only losing because of his addiction to electronic entertainment and the possibility of trying out Willy's machine on himself.
The other two kids could've been Wrath, who's temperament and impatience could cost them their spot early on after Augustus. And Lust, who could serve as our big bad, and has every intention of making it out big by the end anyway by planning on giving their Gobstopper to Slugworth should they lose. But become distraught in the big reveal of Slugworth's true nature as Willy's secret employee and instead attempt an escape from the factory with their Gobstopper to sell to someone else. Only for chaos to ensue, and they get put in a precarious position where their life is in danger and only Charlie can save them. But they would have to choose between their life or the Gobstopper. And obviously, they choose to live, giving Charlie the win.
Charlie: Envy, but not in the way you think. Charlie was the one who went in with essentially nothing and had everything to gain from this excursion. Knowing this, Charlie had to be tested for his true character to see if he was truly worthy of anything, as someone like Charlie could've been tempted by all manner of things that would allow him to rise above his station. But instead, Charlie rejects all temptations by sticking to his virtues and giving his Gobstopper back to Willy, proving his worthiness.
Then Charlie should have been the 8th child.
@@glittergirljmm reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
That's an interesting proposition and would certainly work, once fleshed out.
I'm focusing on the "character" of Charlie though. What builds a person's character, especially a young child? Their parents certainly have the most influence over them and they learn how to behave from their parents.
So wouldn't your version really be a statement about parenting? All the parents, save Charlie's grandpa were just the worst types of people and their children were extensions of _them._
Certainly too difficult a subject for a children's story, but that theme could be subtly placed in the background for the adults in the audience to ponder while children giggle at Oompa Loompas and fantasize about eating Candy Land.
@@Hay-x7p Rude.
If there are 7 sins, with a child to represent each sin; and Charlie is sinless, he would be the 8th child.
@@Hay-x7p Interesting. Especially considering that Charlie is with his grandfather and not his actual parents.
Fun fact: Gene Wilder actually went to watch the Tim Burton's version of the movie and he hated it so much that he literally held campaigns to boycott it, despite the fact that Tim Burton's version is closer and more true to the source material than that 1971 fever dream version
And ironically Roald Dahl's widow has said that if he had been alive to see Tim Burton's version he would've loved it and I can see why, I think it brings to life Dahl's source material wonderfully, it's very faithful while having it's own flair - it feels like a Tim Burton movie! And a lot of people seem to forget that it is NOT a remake of the 1971 movie, it is just another adaptation of the same source material.
Fun fact: The foam used to spurt out in the “Wonka Wash” scene was poisonous. It was made from basic fire extinguishers and was a potent skin irritant, so after shooting the scene, the actors’ skin puffed up and reportedly required several days off set to receive medical treatment and recover.
Sounds like the 1970s..
😲😲😲
Fire extinguisher foam was also used to make snow in It's a Wonderful life in 1946 albeit mixed with soap flakes and sugar. It replaced the cornflake and asbestos method of snow making until the later half of the 20th century.
Thats PFOA or PFAS. Great fact. Wish they figured out then how bad it is for health! Its now in every body and more falling in the rain.
It causes cytokine storms, like what killed people during covid, and other immune system hyper-reactivity reactions. Its absorbed and dosent leave the body so builds up and is a multi system toxin. Now shown to attach to DNA and weaken it.
The tin man in the OZ movies suffered permanently from fine ground aluminum paste makeup . - Yet we bake goods with aluminum baking soda!
I think it damaged his kidneys when the metal was absorbed through his skin. Kidneys are tasked with removing toxins along with the liver so are the first damaged. Heart and brain are toxin sensitive too.
One study showed immediate neurofibulary tangles in the brain of rabbits when aluminum was injected- but we still use foil on food. You can buy metal coated balls to decorate cakes etc...
Inflammation reactions are what people actually die from so we should watch for inflammatory effects and avoid anything causing it.
Asbestos was used as snow in "The Wizard of Oz"
I grew up with Dahl's stories and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was my favorite, and I loved the Gene Wilder version in the movies. With two young grandsons (age one and four), when I heard that the books were going to be "sanitized" and changed my wife and I quickly bought his entire works to get them before any changes, so our grandkids would be able to read the same versions we did. Oh, and we saw "Wonka" on opening night and it was truly a delightful prequel to Wilder's version of the character.
7:42 The classroom version is my personal favorite: "Class dismissed! [...] Class undismissed. [...] Class Redismissed!"
Grandpa Joe is the embodiment of crippling depression. 😂😭 I get it
I consider myself a bit of a sensitivity writer, I’ve done a wide variety of research to learn how to best portray people of different cultures, people of color, lgbtq+, disabilities, and even DID.
And I would NEVER make such changes as Poffin did. I remember being made to read a story, I think Shakespeare, by them in class. And hating how boring it was. I thought “this story was praised?”
Only to read the original Othello and being enraptured; all thanks to a teacher that insisted on giving her class banned books to read. Kids should read the original story, faults and all, and be taught the context of when that story was written.
Proper representation in writing means correcting misconceptions and erasing the damage caused by decades of hate, creating a more understanding and peaceful society.
Representation encourages creative freedom and new stories to be made.
Erasing the ‘bad’ things because something is too ‘violent’ for children isn’t helpful but harmful, unnecessary censorship. Kids need to know it’s ok to talk and ask about simple things like appearance and differences. They need to hear actual ‘bad’ things like slavery to learn from it. For “those that don’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it”.
Of course none of us want to traumatize children, and I’m not saying to expose them to the most violent thing ever. But telling kids about dark topics within reason (like say starving), is important in creating a very empathetic child that’s conscious on how they treat others.
I've always thought that kind of censorship originated in a conservative effort to cancel out genuine progressive narratives by arranging that people misunderstand them (albeit not necessarily consciously). But I won't insist on it.
Exactly what I thought too
@@Ryanthesiren I can't say I'm a fan of "sensitivity writing," but I appreciate that even people like you who clearly identify as "leftists" can see the danger of censorship. I personally think censorship of any kind is a monstrous thing. If I had children, I would encourage them to explore all kinds of literature, while also urging them to "know thyself" and refrain from reading any material they felt unready for. Kids are smarter than you think. They can make decisions on their own. I honestly believe that anything short of hardcore porn should be available to everyone, regardless of age.
Perfectly said
I think there's a common misconception that you and many others like you share that's evident in this comment. The people who are seeking to censor old books are extremists that don't represent the bulk of what people are trying to do today (rather attempting to appeal to those they clearly don't understand). Sensitivity writing and, by extension, "leftist" beliefs and actions solely seek to ensure a more equitable and fair future. The bulk of the censorship that happens these days and in these circles is in regards to bigots whose words or actions are clearly malicious and can cause harm or even encourage harm against certain groups. It's like I like to say about Christians. If you want to believe in a pagan storm god, more power to you. If you start calling for violence against those who share your beliefs or start enacting legislation to strip rights away from those who don't fall in line with the life you want to lead, we have a problem. Censorship is necessary, it all just boils down to context. @@marvinhaines9297
My older brother saw the Gene Wilder version in the original run when he was little. It gave him nightmares. Dreams of being sucked up in tubes and such. To this day he gives a shiver when you even mention Oompa-loompas.
Are you the kind of younger brother who dances around your older brother singing the Oompa-loompa song every chance you get?
Yeah, I am the same way. I was so afraid of the movie-that and Wizard of Oz. I still don’t like people in costumes
@@Girlysamuraiesq Then not only Return to Oz is a Halloween movie to you.
I watched the gene wilder version once when i was a kid, the blueberry scene scarred me, I have never had a blueberry in my life, I never will, and I stopped eating anything blue, gum was fine for now because I usually only had minty gum and it was white not blue, then as a teenager I watched the Johnny depp version on accident (my friend put it on) and it was much worse and bigger so I added gum to the no no list, on top of blueberries, and blue food items. Never ever will I eat gum again 🥶 (it’s been 15 years)
I am a giant Malcolm in the middle fan so the fact that you used candy man from that episode Francis and his military brothers were singing it made my whole day because it’s my birthday and I was have a shitty day. This made me smile ear to ear ❤ thanks Mr Solo
🎉HAPPY BIRTHDAY 🎉 here's some cake 🎂, got balloons 🎈, even found a clown look 🤡 cheer up, buttercup!
@lovielove4243 aww! Totally sweet! I appreciate you kind stranger 🥰
Happy Birthday to you, I hope you continue to have a better day 🎂🎊🎊🎂
Thank you soooo much for your honesty of the childhood story/film, which I've viewed them all, at least those which you shown. Thanks for your show, share and perspective
I was 8 in 1984, I would go to the library on my way home from. School and vividly remember reading Charlie and the chocolate factory and Charlie and the glass elevator, I adored the illustrations and would read them for hours over and over. They were so intreaging to my imagination. Very few books I recall from then but those two stuck all these years.
Same here I was 3 so to young but I read it at school in 1991 and It was brilliant.
I'm about 2 years younger than you and now I'm questioning which version I would have read. I don't remember the ooopma loopas being described as "rosy skinned" but the description matching the illustrations. So it must have been an older version somehow, even though I also owned copies. I'm so confused now, lol.
Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka feels so much more comforting and believably fond of children. It just feels like a hug. Depp's Wonka feels alien and cold.
Really? I always felt they were both mentally unstable 😅
They both seem like creepy pedos, that's what a guy like that in real life would be
I think we watched different movies, because Gene's Wonka always seemed like he'd have zero problems with child murder. Depp's Wonka was kind of the same but with a touch of confusion like he'd also never actually seen a child in real life before.
Well.. the reason Depp's Wonka is so weird and socially inept.. is because that's how Wonka is.
Lmao that's not true about him at all. Someone who nonchalantly jokes about children possibly dying is NOT a caring person
I took my baby brother to this movie in 1971. I was 14, he was 5. I was so bored I could barely stand it. Our parents never would have taken me to a movie like this, and I never understood the children's movie genre, but my brother, 58, now, I hope remembers.
You sound like a miserable older sibling to have smh lol
“I had to make sure you were paying attention.”😂😂😂
Gloop's original casting as a German boy was likely a decision based on their filming the movie in Munich, Germany, and Michael Böllner, who played him, later recalled in an interview for the film's DVD special features that his mother had answered a casting advertisement in the paper.
Glup could be Germanized version of Polish word głup (meaning stupid). And yeah I haven't heard of anyone bearing such surname but I have heard of some really weird ones so it kinda makes sense.
While Augustus Gloop wasn't explicitly German in the book, I'm curious whether there was a connection between him and Augustus from Heinrich Hoffmann's "Der Struwwelpeter." Dahl cited this book as a major influence. Both works are basically a bunch of stories about children meeting horrific fates due to their own misbehavior. Augustus (called Kaspar in the original German) was a chubby boy who refused to eat his soup and consequently starved to death. Dahl certainly would have been familiar with the character, and I wonder if that's why he chose the name.
im so highly against "editing" books... no matter how "bad" ppl may think it is, its history in a way and they are changing it. to me thats just wrong
The Tim Burton version will always be my favorite. I’m actually surprised at how much more accurate it is to the book.
Same! It's not only the best version but my favorite movie of all time!
For starters, the title
It was trash wilders version was way better.
@@Allious131 Agree to disagree
@@Wolfdog2416 And that is why it's called the world everyone is different.
Could all the offended people please move to a random island in middle of nowhere and just be offended by each other and just let the rest of us enjoy things
You seem ... 🤔 offended😂
@Retro-Revival 😂 you should never assume anything specialy when you don't no someone 🤷♀️
"They sent out the sensitivity readers to plant their flag in the moral high ground so everyone can see their virtue from far and wide"
Oh, that was beautiful.
You hit the nail on the head! That gang of anonymous "Insensitivity Censors" managed to deface a classic; just like Thomas Bowdler did with the works of Shakespeare in the early 19th Century.
I’m a little nervous for the prequel. I think to get a background story on an iconic character has the potential to either add to the mythos or ruin it
Hopefully add to it, then...
But this is Hollywood, so probably not
@@DrDolan2000 Hollywood being what it is…..just wants to capitalize on the popularity of the character. It was like with the Star Wars prequels. Darth Vader is iconic so they wanted to capitalize on that with his own backstory
I personally think it'll ruin it. Willy Wonka isn't supposed to be "whimsical" in my opinion.
I've seen so many deep dives on both movies and I've realized, the prequel is just continuing a story Roald Dahl didn't even want.
And technically it's a sequel, cuz Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a remake not the "second movie to the first one" if that makes since. I just don't know, I don't think I'll be impressed. Maybe if Tim Burton was the director🤷🏽♀️.
Even the first movie, which is what the prequel is based off of despite being FAR less accurate to the book, has an origin story about the Oompa-Loompas that doesn't match up at all.
I can understand why Roald Dahl changed the Oompa Loompa's. He thought it was a bit of a mistake on his end and changed it up. But what the publishing company did was just messed up.
Yeah there’s actually valid reasoning for Dahl changing the Oompa Loompa’s. But the publisher just got scared of offending anyone which I don’t get because I’ve never heard of anyone offended by the book. I’m sure they exist but not enough to pressure the publisher to make such changes. Doesn’t make much sense to me because if a kid reads the book he’ll likely want to see the movie anyway and will see how the characters are depicted appearance wise
@@jayscott4118 I have a second edition of the book and it basically describes the Oompa Loompas as little black people who were found living in tribal situations and who are paid with cacao. It was a bit of a shock after having grown up with a 2005ish Quentin Blake illustrated version.
Then again, their presentation was still likeable, but I could see why some people might have an issue.
But it didn’t feel like it would encourage racism, since the Oompa Loompas are their own race of people and are quirky, friendly, and likeable. They just felt very Dahlian and fantastical, so there didn’t feel like there was a connection to reality.
But those changes actually made them more interesting, so I’m fine with them. However, I don’t agree with the recent changes. ‘Fat’ for example, is a physical descriptor. I’m not really sure how you’re supposed to describe Augustus Gloop without using that word, since not only is it part of his character, but other words for ‘fat’ would probably be more offensive. And ‘white as a sheet’… that’s a metaphor with zero racial connection and which describes a bloodless appearance. When one of my friends, who is black, heard it, her reaction was “BS”.
Things are far too touchy these days, to the point where it is rare to see heterosexual white (non-ginger) men and women in commercial product advertising unless it is a product for them, eg. blonde hair dye. You’ll still see a few, but not many.
Representation is not a bad thing, but it should be accurate.
While I don’t agree with the following view, there is a growing feeling amongst the young population that your future isn’t very good if you’re an average white male without a disability or being part of the LGBT+ community. That kind of thought is very scary for several reasons and should not be the case.
The scariest part is that this thought is being encouraged on an industrial basis. I know of one government agency which requires a quiz as part of training. The answer to the question “what is equality?” was apparently giving minorities preferential treatment. That is discrimination. Equality is providing equal treatment to everyone regardless of any factors. Equity is what the aim should be, which is doing the equivalent of providing a child three boxes to stand on, a teen two boxes, and an adult one box because they only need one box to see over the same fence as the other two. It is scary that the government has actually started approving this kind of thing.
Yeah, I think there's a difference when the author him/herself makes a change and when someone else forces it. Diane Duane did the same thing when a book she'd written about an autistic child pre-internet turned out to be way off-base as the perspectives of autistic people started showing up online: she went back and changed things to make them more accurate and respectful in light of the information she now had that she hadn't had when she first wrote her book. If someone else had forced it though, I wouldn't have liked the imposition.
@@Emily.R.Wof course it’s offensive which is why they changed it… what encouraged that thought in 1960s be foreal 🤦🏽♂️ you’re more offended by Augustus choosing to be fat and saying that’s offensive something he can change but having Africans work for chocolate and having them think they were made of chocolate isn’t offensive 😂😂 joke
@@budsgamin Joker
An extraordinarily researched and deep-thinkingng doco. That earned my subscription!
I was a fat kid (and a fat adult) but never felt threatened by the description of Augustus Gloop. What happened to these kids was a result of their actions, no their appearances and I saw it more like cautionary tales. You could argue that if the appearance has nothing to do with the consequences, then it doesn't matter if it is included or not and leave it to the kids imagination. You could, but how will they learn the variety that exists? And since people tend to fear the unknown, how will they learn having tolerance and compassion for something different?
People these days are snowflakes
Props… for keeping it real
A fat person who doesn’t mind being called fat? Sounds like a pick me.
It's been a process but as said, I even then, I had more attention for their actions than their appearances.
To me, the broad sweep of the different endings reflect the time and culture of each. In the book, written in welfare-state Britain, the highest virtue was doing as you were told, and so Charlie wins by never stepping out of line. In the USA of the 60s-70s, the highest virtue was to treat others honestly, and so Charlie won by refusing to betray Wonka. By the Burton version, society's focus was on resolving emotional issues, so Charlie wins by helping Wonka resolve his own twisted psyche.
Interesting point of view and I agree.
Good point.
Perfectly stated. I agree with this.
Very accurate
I wouldn't stay the value was doing as you where told as such. Just having standards of behaviour.
The “I do too when I walk past my local dispensary” made me spit my water. me too, Jon. Me too.
I watched a documentary on candy and they said Nestles candy gave the money to make the movie but made them change the name so they could make the chocolate and help with its sales.
The infamous Mr. Dahl has been a great influence in my life. Growing up on his original work sparked my enthusiasm for reading as a child, he made me an author. First, growing up as a little brown girl, in an all brown school, we all knew that Rahl Dahl rewrote the Oompa Loompas to refrain from depicting Africans in slavery. We didn’t care because we knew who we were. Sensitivity groups are the reason the world is upside down, now. Mr. Dahl showed us the real world and helped many of us hold on to our imagination, which is the key to the reason why many adults don’t succeed. As a writer, I can attest to the fact that it’s hard to share your creativity with a world that’s so judgmental and half as talented. Mr. Dahl made me loud, righteous and brave in a world that’s meant to be scary, but if you grow up reading the books we had in the 90’s, nothing would scare you. Shout out Mrs. Judy Blume as well 🙌🏾
YES, that is true what you say--"Sensitivity groups are the reason the world is upside down, now" added to that is the modern media complex that PROFITS from all the drummed up chaos!
Absolutely well said! :)
The first thing I thought when I heard of the forced rewriting of the book was "oh, so there already were -woke idiots- **cough** _Sensitivity groups_ around at the time".
Shame Dahl himself was an anti-semite/racist.....
You got that right. My mother was a genealogist and historian for a small town in Upstate NY and when she spoke about the Underground Railroad she was ridiculed for being a white woman "teaching blacks about black history" as a sensitivity group put it. Funny thing about the offended sensitivity group...they were all white and the people who showed up to hear her talk were all black, and they were confused about how it was offensive.
I found it strange that Dept acted kinda like Micheal Jackson being Jack Sparrow. I like the Tim Burton UmpaLumpa, they are so awesome because they can do ANYTHING from labor workers, technician to doctors! LoL!
And they're good at therapy lol
As someone who grew up on the books and never saw either of the movies, I really enjoyed this overview to get a sense of the differences between them, as well as some nostalgia from the original illustrations.
When you pointed out wonkas weird hair, yeah you aint the only one. That movie is my childhood and back then i questioned his hair.