Talk:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wonka logo

Is it just me or is the logo worn by the Oompa Loompas in the 2005 movie the same as the 1971 Wonka logo? (Different to the curly logo seen on the 2005 chocolates.) - Kwill 07:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Both logos on the candy bars feature a curly part of a "W". However, the 1971 logo features a top hat over the "W" in Wonka.- JustPhil 12:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Mrs Teevee

Who's playing Mrs. Teevee in this movie? --User Talk:Angie Y.

Mrs. Teavee is NOT in the film. (Ibaranoff24 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

Mrs. Teavee IS in the film. She is seen standing next to Mr. Teavee in the scene where Mike explains to the press how he figured out how to find the golden ticket (while sitting on the floor and playing the video game.) She had a non-speaking role, and is not listed in the credits. ThatsNotFunny

First names of parents?

What are the first names of some of the parents? The only parent given a name is Veruca's mom, Angina Salt. --User Talk:Angie Y.

Criticism section

Added a brief note on the criticisms of overtones of slavery, colonialism and racism in the film, similar to those made about the book when it came out in 64.--Fluxaviator 06:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I did some editing. We were editing at the same time, so sorry if anything is lost, I don't think it was. I tried keeping your points, but added the fact the book was changed to respond to criticism. Also, the fact the characters in the current film are white, unlike the first version of the book. If you choose to reword my rewording, I hope the same facts are kept in. It seems pretty obvious the 2005 film characters were "white pygmies", but I didn't use the term, since it's a little POV. --rob 07:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

They were not at all "white pygmies" in the 2005 film..they looked pacific islander. Please explain what you mean? have you seen the film? They are very very brown!--Fluxaviator 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have changed it to read small brown men. Here is a link of a photo of the very NOT white Indigenous looking Oompa Loompa. I like the text about the book being changed though. --Fluxaviator 07:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The actor is white. Not the "color white". Nobody is the color white. He is what most would call white. He is far from what one would imagine of a pygmie from the "darkest part of Africa", imagined in the book. There is no group called "brown" people. A tanned white person, is still white, not brown. There were no brown people in the 2005 film. There is no non-white ethnic group you can match the Oompa to. The closest real ethnic group, you can match, is to whites. The word "brown" is misleading, as it's often been used to describe people of mixed European and African ethnicity. The Oompa have no visible African ancestory whatsoever. --rob 07:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The actor who plays all of the Oompa Loompas is named Deep Roy. He was born in Kenya of Indian ancestry. John Barleycorn 08:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. I was stupid to get into some conversion about race. Somebody is going to put all his beefs of racism, slavery, and colonism into this article. Go ahead. I was talking about what I saw in film, and don't care where the actual actor came from. It means nothing to me. But, for those obsessed with race, it's meaningful. One more wiki article has been wrecked by a poltical agenda. I'll being clicking "Save" and "Unwatch" now. Bye. --rob 08:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying this but I fell this argument is getting ridiculous, I feel you are just being a bit unreasonable. This film is one of the most racist and colonialist films I have ever seen in my life. Which is not to say I did not enjoy it otherwise, the FX and the creative design were amazing. But I feel it is important to point out blatant racism and colonialism when and where it appears in our culture. And only in the criticism section of this page as is found on many wiki pages. Consider that Wonka travels to the jungle in an “exotic land" (which looks to be somewhere in Asia or the pacific Islands) and "saves" by bringing back the small indigenous people to Europe to work in a factory for beans which they worship. These little poeple are represented by a man of Indian ancestry wearing feathers and a headdress while living in a tree hut and eating bugs. It reminds me of the deep racism found in many of Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars books in the early 1900's. --Fluxaviator 08:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're both entitled "unreasonable" opinions, but I'm keeping my opinions on the talk page, not the main article. The entire "Criticism" section is the personal opinion, not fact, of you, and maybe a few other people. You cite no sources. For instances, you could cite some prominent movie critics, or perhaps some well-known civil rights organizations, and then be clear that these are *opinions* of said people. You give no source for quote from Wilder. Rather, you put your own personal opinions as fact, within a couple days of the movies release. You've shown no evidence of any *established* controversy over this film. Rather, you are trying to start one, and using wiki as your free web space, and soap box. At an absolute minimum, I expect every contested point to be backed up with some sort of footnote. Otherwise, some further editing will be needed. --rob 22:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I have re-added the criticism section more or less as it appeared on July 31, since I do not see any discussion of removing it from the page entirely. Many wiki pages have criticism pages. As to the sources rob asks for I have added a few of them. [1][2]I also agree with the clarification that these type of criticism (of racism) have only appeared in blogs and message boards so far and think it is good to say so, which the page now does.--Fluxaviator 05:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Both sides of a debate need to be shown, or no sides should be shown. Currently only one side of the debate is being shown. --rob 07:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Other criticisms

I happen to be friends with Wally Wingert personally. He is friends with the man who originally played Violet Beauregarde's father, Leonard Stone, and he is greatly in defense of his friend, and he dislikes other facets of the film, like the Nut Room. --User:Angie Y.

That's a stupid criticism. The Nut Room appeared in the book, didn't it? -- A Link to the Past 21:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it did, it was changed to geese or something in the first film because they didn't have the money/technology to do squirrels, it was squirrels recognising a 'bad nut' in the book. What a completely idiotic critisism (I don't think they're in any position to argue over how bad the deatil of the new film is if they haven't even bothered to read the book) I hope they never voice it, they'll never be taken seriously then. --195.92.168.167 20:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah... The Nut room was in the book, the egg room was not... It was changed, I think, because "Bad egg" made for a better pun than "Bad nut" though that may be an American-Brittish discrepency... I'm not sure... WhateverTS 21:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Indian or African?

Okay it says here that Deep Roy was born in Nairobi which is the capital of Kenya (unless there's a Nairobi in India?) yet in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005 movie) it claims he is of Indian descent. Here, too, it says he was born in Nairobi but claims he is Indian. What am I missing here, anyone care to enlighten me?
Ø 23:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The part of the article you refer to is about ancestory, not geography of birth, nor citizenship. I beleive his family originated in India, then moved to Africa, then he was born, and then he moved with his dad to Britain.[3] For whatever reason, non-blacks are almost never called Africans (maybe Africaners but not Africans), even if they live their whole lives in Africa, even after multiple generations. --rob 00:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Opening credits

Did you think my thing about the opening credits difference wasn't needed?- B-101 17:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

1971 Movie

We shouldn't list differences. There are very, very, VERY many differences, for the sole reason that it's not a remake. -- A Link to the Past 02:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

But, there's still a basis for comparisons, due to the number of major characters that are in common. --rob 06:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That's because they're the same source material. The only difference listed should be "While Willy Wonka took a departure from the original book, Charlie an the Chocolate Factory is a closer adaption, though not an exact one." -- A Link to the Past 07:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I guess, where I'm confused, is that you've stated some facts, but given no reasons for your desire to remove the section. Yes, the 2005 is based much more closely on the book that the 1971 film. Yes, the movies have common characters, because they're both based on the book. Yes, there are lots of differences between 1971 and 2005, because the 2005 was a closer re-adpatation of the book. So, what's your point? If the two movies were identical, or totally unrelated, there would be no need for a comparison. But, they are related, not parent/child, but brother/sister. That warrants a comparison section. The fact there are lots of differences, just means that section should be *added* to, not deleted. Is there some sort of space shortage I'm unaware of? It's not like this article about to go on like Star Wars or something. --rob 09:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much bandwith it takes up or doesn't take up. It's not noteworthy. It isn't a remake or expansion of the movie, it's not even related to the original outside of subject matter. Do we compare every single Hamlet movie to the others because they're based on the same subject matter? No. So, we shouldn't compare them here. A differences section is only required when it's a movie that took the original and ran with it (ie, a remake). This is stand-alone. It's not different because it was remade (not saying it was, because it wasn't), it's different because it just is. There's no sequel/remake/prequel thing going on, so the section is not warranted. -- A Link to the Past 09:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Based on your suggestion, I think it would be a great idea for somebody to make a whole article about Hamlet movies, showing comparisons, and different approaches, in their re-interpretation. That would be really fascninating. I'm more favorable to Romeo and Juliet, and would love seeing something like that. I would love to read of how each character is re-imagined in each re-telling. Since there's only two Chocolate Factory re-interpretations, a seperate article is not warranted, but a section in the article is easily warranted. It's weird, but I agree with every *fact* you stated, but I am more convinced than ever the comparison section is sufficiently notable and appropriate for inclusion. --rob 18:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Then delete it. It has no place on this article, and it has no place in its own article. Let's just consider, for one instant, that two very different movies that have the same source material do NOT have to have a frame-by-frame comparison. And also, let's just TRY and consider the fact that these are separate movies. The two of them aren't brother/sister; they're stepbrother/stepsister. And let's just assume that because every movie that is related in even the most miniscule way don't have a frame-by-frame comparison, so neither should this. It has no place on this article. The only difference needing stated is "Willy Wonka is kiddy, Charlie is not". And that makes for a short section. -- A Link to the Past 21:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Go and re-watch the 1971 film. It's obvious you haven't recently. I expect the section to stay. --rob 23:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If that's in response to me calling it kiddy - author's words, not mine. The section is not needed. It doesn't help improve it - all that needs to be said is that it's very different from the original and truer to the book. -- A Link to the Past 23:34, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Going ahead and mass deleting the contributions of a half dozen people, with nobody in agreement with you, is outrageous. It's barely short of vandalism. Before doing such a massive deletion you should get at least a few people to agree with you. --rob 06:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that it's good practice for a useless section to take up this much room. You're telling me, that it's appropriate to list the differences between two movies, where the point WAS to be different? How the Hell does that even work?! You're calling me a vandal for thinking that when a movie strives to be different from a movie in the same franchise, that it should be enough to point out that it's different with one single sentence? Get over it. This section is useless. -- A Link to the Past 07:12, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I thought the "differences" section was very helpful before when it stated major differences with the other film from the SAME book. I would like to see it back. I do not find this chart idea very helpful at all and perfer the old bullet points. --Fluxaviator 05:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

About the differences

The following is a copy-paste from the ==Differences from the 1971 film== section (which, by the way, needs to be re-named to be more grammatically accurate):

• In this movie, Violet and Veruca become friends, possibly as a competitive ploy. This did not occur in the book and certainly not the 1971 film. In the musical film, Violet and Veruca can be seen feuding while Wonka is singing Pure Imagination. But Veruca's eyes go wide when Violet turns into a blueberry.

This bullet point needs to be cleaned up, particularly since the "Violet and Veruca become friends" difference is mentioned in a previous section. I'm also not even sure what "But Veruca's eyes go wide when Violet turns into a blueberry." is supposed to mean -- wasn't everyone shocked when Violet turned violet? Well, except for Mr. Wonka, of course :-D

Agreed, especially about redunancy. I think before doing more comparisons, we should think of a re-ogranization of all criticisms. One approach (some will dislike) is to use a table. This could make things much more concise. There'ld be no need to constantly repeat the words "In the book...., but in the 1971 film ......but in the 2005 film", for each and every point. Here's a *very* crude/incomplete example:

	book	1971 film	2005 film
Charlie's dad	assumed dead	assumed dead	alive
Oompa skin color	black	orange	heavy tan

We could (and would have to be) extremely concise if we used a table. But, I think that's good. Also, the "comparisons" done in the other articles could all be consilidated here. A short paragraph could follow, for things that don't fit in the table. People who don't get tables could add to the paragraph, and somebody else could later add it to the table.

--rob 07:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That's perfect. My main issue was that it was calling itself Differences from the 1971 film, as if it was saying "This movie contradicts" or "This movie changes this idea". A comparison is a-okay. -- A Link to the Past 09:00, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear. I think we can get rid of most of the "awkward" language, without removing any facts. Can somebody who's read *both* versions of the book tell me if they should be treated as one or two seperate columns? To my knowledge, only the Oompa's change, but the rest of the book is the same. Hence, I would have just one column for the book. --rob 09:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That table is ridiculous! Charlie's dad wasn't dead in the book. He was actually a character. He lost his job at the toothpaste factory when it closed down!

The table above was just an experiment (with mistakes). I did the change, and welcome improvements to it. Ultimately, I would like to have this page where all "differences" (for all three articles) are placed. --rob 01:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Fizzy lifting room?

I've just seen this. The section where Charlie and Grandpa Joe sneak off and nearly get sucked into the fan was missing, wasn't it? --161.73.58.135 23:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes well, that scene was added to the first movie in order to give Wonka an excuse not to give Charlie the free chocolate.- JustPhil 20:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Fizzy lifting room Answer

That scene wasn't in the book, the only reason they added it to the old film was because Wonka uses it as an excuse to explain why Charlie does not gain his free chocolate. for example:

Grandpa Joe: Mister Wonka?

Willy Wonka: I am extraordinarily busy, sir.

Grandpa Joe: I was just wondering about the chocolate. The lifetime supply of chocolate? For Charlie? When does he get it?

Willy Wonka: He doesn't.

Grandpa Joe: Why not?

Willy Wonka: Because he broke the rules.

Grandpa Joe: What rules? We didn't see any rules, did we, Charlie?

Willy Wonka: Wrong, sir. Wrong. Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if - and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy - "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera..."Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera..."Memo bis punitor delicatum". 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.

Grandpa Joe: You're a crook. You're a cheat and a swindler. How could you do a thing like this, raise up a little boy's hopes and then dash all his dreams to pieces? You're an inhuman monster.

Willy Wonka: I said good day.

File:Catcf-glasselevator-buttons.jpg

Fizzy Lifting Drinks button

I'd like to add that this scene was more in keeping with the 1971 musical's message of moderation, which was not the message of the book. In the book, the message was "Kids who chew gum, are fat, are spoiled, and watch TV are Evil little children." WhateverTS 21:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fizzy lifting room Revisited

The scene in the Fizzy Lifting Drinks Room may have been omitted, but the room itself was still a part of the factory. Consider this image... Fizzy Lifting Drinks is clearly marked, in the thumbnail at right.

Best quote ever:

You lose. Good day sir!!! --Fito 19:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nono, it's "The Taffy stretching room", "The Taffy stretching room!?", "Hey, that was my idea."

On the matter of quotes, is it entirely necessary to have a section in the article dedicated to quotations, when there's a WikiQuote entry for that? --Boxclocke 06:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It's Teavee not Teevee

See:

• http://chocolatefactorymovie.warnerbros.com/
• http://php.warnerbros.com/movies/chocolatefactorymovie/teavee/index.php

I'll make the change. I put this here, so it's hopefully not reverted. The article is already titled Mike Teavee

Trivia section?

Is it standard practice to have a Trivia section on a wikipedia page? I seems odd to me for an encyclopedia.--Fluxaviator 05:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems like those points should perhaps be in a "production notes" or "special effects" section. --Fluxaviator 07:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with moving it to a more appropriate section or sub-section (existing or new). The word "Trivia" just tells the reader the information is unimportant, which, as suggested, doesn't sound very "encyclopedic". --rob 08:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur.—Theo (Talk) 08:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you can make a strong argument for deleting trivia sections in their entirety ;-) Probably the best thing to do is to look carefully at the information there, decide what's genuinely relevant (relative to the topic) and what's just cruft, and move the useful stuff elsewhere as suggested above. — Matt Crypto 11:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

While it is perhaps not "standard practice" to have a trivia section, many (if not most) large film/pop-culture-related articles have one. While I do think it could use some paring down, I'd vote against removing it altogether. Boxclocke 00:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

True—just as many if not most articles do not cite sources; the prevailing state is not necessarily optimal, which is why less than 10% of articles are featured. In my opinion, trivia sections encourage editors and readers less engaged with pop culture to dismiss the article as trivial. They also encourage the use of bulleted lists rather than the writing of encyclopedic linked paragraphs of prose. —Theo (Talk) 10:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the bit of information after the Invader Zim reference. I didn't see why it needed to list the people who star in that particular show if this article is about the movie. RasstheLenek 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture References

Is it just me, or were there many pop culture, particularly movie, references in this film? The most obvious one is to the musical "Hair" when Willy says to the children, "Good morning starshine, the earth says hello." Other, more tongue-in-cheek references include Edward Scissorhands (another Burton and Depp film) when Willy cuts the ribbon at the grand opening of his factory and the camera focuses on the scissors held by Willy for this task, Pirates of the Carribbean in the way that Willy swings his machete in the jungles of Loompaland, and Star Wars when they show the construction of the chocolate palace, with the half-completed dome on top of the castle looking suspiciously like the half-built Death Star in Return of the Jedi. I couldn't find any more information on this and was wondering if I was just making all this up, or if other people had noticed these things as well.

---

Yes I noticed the 2001: A Space Odyssey reference as well as the Edward Scissorhands reference- others claim that it is just a coincidence, but i mean, it can't be. it is a little bit tongue in cheek- i think i was the only one in the cinema that got it :) Plus, in the scene where there are chocolates in the fire (sorry i cant be more specific) there is a Nightmare Before Christmas chocolate, apparently. we will have to wait until it comes out on dvd before we can be sure of all the references, though... --Rachel Cakes 04:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Elevator buttons

User:Matt Crypto removed the following unverified buttons from the article (correctly, in my opinion). If anyone can verify them, then they can be restored individually. The list is: "Mighty Jam Monitor, Creative Dog Flip, Weird Lollipops, Elastic Forest, Leaky Canes, Dessert Island, People Poo, and Pie Cream have been spotted, though these buttons are unverified." —Theo (Talk) 10:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Good call, IMO. Upon googling, I'd found those additional buttons at imdb, and I didn't want to discredit whomever put them there, although I didn't personally spot them. I know there were some I saw on the big screen that I can't remember, though this list seems fairly thorough. Ayelis 11:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Article for Deletion vote on table of differences

Please note, the article Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is being considered for deletion. You may wish to visit the AFD page to have input. Some (not me) have suggested a merge back into here, so this vote would obviously effect this article signficantly. --rob 18:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

CATCF fansite

There is a CATCF fansite down the bottom of the page but it doesn't seem to work for me. CATCF Online I have tried going to it during different times of the day but it seems to be down permanantly. Can anyone else access it?

I am using Mozilla Firefox (if that makes a difference). If it still isn't working in 1 week then I will remove the link. --Rachel Cakes 09:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It didn't work for me either, and I removed it. If it works again in the future, somebody can add it back. It's so easy to find fan sites on this topic, I'm sure it's not a loss for anybody. If it had been used as a "Reference" or was an official site, then I would have wanted to keep it for a longer period. --rob 09:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

More pictures and trivia

Since it's out on DVD now, I think we should get some more plot images (preferably ones of the children's demise). Also (in response to an earlier comment on this page), I do think that the half-finished chocolate palace dome looks like the Death Star and additionally, the way Mike flies into the air as the Oompa Loompa song goes from KISS to The Beatles looks like a reference to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.- JustPhil 19:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes- that is a good idea. As long as you don't think they will clutter up the page (maybe we could remove some images that aren't as important)? But yes, that sounds great. I probably would do that myself if it was out here on dvd. But it won't be until another 3 months. but yes, go ahead.

References to other movies, particulary eggs of other Tim Burton and Johnny Depp films, would be an interesting section to have. Particulary the part where Wonka is opening his factory with the scissors (a homage to Edward Scissorhands). Or maybe they could go in the Trivia section. But a good idea anyway. :)

--Rachel Cakes 08:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I would add some images, but I have no idea how to get images from the DVD. And one more thing, I think we should remove the teaser posters on the children's articles and replace them with screenshots.- JustPhil 20:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You should have a button that will take screencaps of dvd's on on the dvd players software (on your computer) otherwise you could try to press 'Print Screen' and then paste it onto a picture editing program.

I know what you mean about the teaser posters of the childrens characters articles- I used to dislike them but now it doesn't bother me. Actually, I think the 2005 pictures suit the article for now, because it shows that they are from the most recent movie but maybe they could be changed to a screencap of each of the child from the movie, sometime in the future. That's my 2 cents, anyway. Any other opinions? --Rachel Cakes 08:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I do like the teaser posters. But now, I think we should put up some actual screenshots of the kids from the movie.- JustPhil 13:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia dispute

"The happiness of characters involved in chocolate in the film “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” contrasts with the misery of children, some only 9 years old, forced to work in horrific conditions producing cocoa beans. See Chocolate and slavery. A campaign is under way to give out leaflets explaining the problem when, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is screened."

Is this suppose to be in this article?- JustPhil 15:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Scorpionman 03:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sequel

Are there any plans to make a film based on Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator? Scorpionman 03:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. Looking back, I didn't really like the sequel to the book very much (just my two cents). Personally, I really like the ending to the film; it ties up all the loose ends in a way that the 1971 film doesn't even come close. The book ends with the family blasting off into space, but in this film, the family is already in the factory. I doubt that Tim Burton or the actors have any plans for a sequel.- JustPhil 17:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. Personally, i really enjoyed the second book and am disappointed that the third book was never done. The ending to this film was poor; they should've done it the way the book did. Of course, I've already thought of ways that they could fit in a sequel. Mr. Wonka could be giving the rest of the family a tour of the factory, and then one of them accidentally pushes the "Up and Out" button and they go crashing through the roof again and end up having to do what they did in Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. But they shouldn't have had Mr. Wonka refusing Charlie's family in the first place. Scorpionman 00:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

"40 squirrels were actually trained from birth for six months to crack nuts for Veruca Salt's Nut Room scene (making it one of the most believable scenes in the whole film)."

This sounds like someone involved in the production having a little fun with the audience. What's described would be very expensive and harmful to the animals. Animated squirrels are well within the capability of current CGI technology. Gazpacho 10:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's explain in one of the features on the DVD. They did train squirrels, but only the smartest ones they had were used for the nut cracking. To help with the scene, some CGI was used and also some squirrel puppet/stand-in's.- JustPhil 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)