Jump to content

Talk:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Racism?

'There have been some criticisms of racism, colonialism, slavery, and group stereotyping similar to those received by the original 1964 book, in which the Oompa-Loompas were described as dark-skinned pygmies from the African jungle."

The Oompa-Lumpas are depicted as small natives (South-American indigenous in resemblance) not African pygmies, they are completely different. In the 1971 version they hired small American/European midgets.--King of the Dancehall 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese-dubbed version of movie

Where is the Japanese-dubbed version of the movie? Was there ever a premiere in Tokyo? --User:Angie Y.

1. Check the region 2 release of the DVD. I am pretty sure it just has Japanese subtitles, though.
2. Yes. The premiere was in Tokyo on September 10, 2005. --Rachel Cakes 07:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Who provides the dubbed voices and can audio clips be downloaded? --User:Angie Y.

Have you tried doing a Google search? I did and you can actually purchase the DVD with the Japanese dub and subtitles. So if you really wanted the dvd here is the link. I'm not sure where to download the Japanese audio dub, though. --Rachel Cakes 06:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What are the character names in that language? --User:Angie Y.

I have no idea. Try doing a Google search or ask someone who is Japanese. --Rachel Cakes 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What is so outstanding about the Japanese dub? The movie was dubbed in German, too, and that dubbing isn't on the US DVD either. I think that sentence is rather inane and non-sensical. --84.184.118.149 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"The current American DVD release has no Japanese language track or subtitles."
I don't understand either the importance of this sentence, either. Yes, there are no Japanese subtitle or voice dubs on the US release of the DVD, but I'm sure there aren't a lot of languages available on that US release, too.
Besides, on different releases around the world I'm sure they are dubbed and/or subtitled into the respective languages for the country with which it is released.
If you really want to add something about the langauges of this movie, then why don't you find out all of the different dubs/subtitled releases of this DVD and then add this to the trivia section:
"The DVD has been dubbed into various languages such as...."
Or I can do it when I have time... --Rachel Cakes 07:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The Japanese dub voice actors go as follows:

That's all I could find, but I hope it's enough... for whatever you're doing.Cat's Tuxedo 16:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Glass Elevator

Is there a chance the Great Glass Elevator book will be made into a movie (alosng the lines of the 2005 remake of course, we already know there's no chance of it being sequel to the 1971 one). --Wack'd About Wiki 20:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is going to be a sequel to this film, Tim Burton will not make it. Ever. He stated so himself. And this film was so good that it would probably be less successful, both financially and critically, so it would be a waste but that's just my opinion. But knowing Hollywood, there could be a chance that The Glass Elevator could be made, seeing how this film was so successful. But Burton will not have any involvement with it in any way. --Rachel Cakes 06:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Question

The trivia section claims that a great many actors were considered for the role of Grandpa Joe..yet many of those actors had long since passed away well before the script was even written and a director chosen.

  • Don Ameche died 1993
  • Peter Cushing died 1994
  • John Gielgud died 2000
  • Alec Guinness died 2000
  • Richard Harris died 2002
  • Burt Lancaster died 1994
  • Jack Lemmon died 2001
  • Gregory Peck died 2003
  • Donald Pleasance died 1995

How is this possible? There is no citation to back up these claims. IrishGuy 23:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

'Burton on Burton' says this: "After Dahl's death in 1990 the rights to the property in the US reverted to the Dahl estate, and Warner Bros began pursuing a new version." Even without a script or a director, there still could have been some thought into the person playing the part of Grandpa Joe as early as 1990, as this is when it is suggested the production of the film first began. Titaniapixie 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kids' ages in movie

What are the ages of the kids (Charlie, Veruca, Augustus, Violet, and Mike) in the 2005 movie as opposed to the kids' ages in the original 1964 book, the revised publications of the book, and the 1971 David L. Wolper film? --User:Angie Y.

Plot Overview

The plot overview needs a complete rewrite. It reads like an advertisement and has entirely the wrong tone. --Improv 01:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Move

Somebody moved the page to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005 film). Since this is the only film with the title "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (the first film adaptation had "Willy Wonka"), I moved it back. (Ibaranoff24 00:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Wasn't there a reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (film) when the elevator was flying? That Oompa waving to them while making the mountain? Was it? --Ferra 21:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

did the gum have a 3-course or 4-course meal?

I think I recall that it was 3-course (the dessert being the third), so I think I'll go ahead and change it. Feel free to change it back if I'm wrong. Thanks. Mas2265 03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Continuity Error?

Charlie payed $10 for the winning chocolate bar, and chocolate bars cost 10p. Strangely British and American currency is mixed. Also, Charlie never asks for his change and leaves without it, resultng in the shopkeeper making a free $9.90.

This is in error. Upon close examination of the scene, the shopkeep sets the change before Charlie, then realizes he has the goden ticket. At the end of the scene, the camera pans away, so we can not confirm if Charlie takes the change or not. I'm removing it until this can verified further, or worded better. Ruhemaus 05:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If I would have found a golden ticket, I'd be too surprised and excited to care about the change, after all it's one of only five all around the world... 88.73.56.0 10:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Will Smith

Yes, it does list his name from the cited source:

"Since the late '90s, the idea of making a new Charlie had been kicking around at Warner Bros., and the studio went through a roster of directors who didn't stick until Burton finally signed on. Over the years, Wonka candidates had come and gone too (Jim Carrey, Nicolas Cage, Brad Pitt, and Will Smith). Even Marilyn Manson's name came up at one point, although no one's quite sure whether it was just Manson himself who brought up the notion. I have no idea where that came from, says Charlie producer Brad Grey, who has since been hired to run Paramount Pictures."

There you have it. I wouldn't make up such a weird claim if it wasn't true. LOL. Will Smith as Willy Wonka? Oh well.....Hollywood just works that way. Wildroot (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Noah Taylor

helena bonham carter plays Charlie's mother and yet gets put in the starring links but noah taylor who plays Charlie's father does NOT get his link up there. I think that's really stupid. they had both the same amount of screen time

is this some popularity contest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.134.97 (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

British / American English in the script

The Bucket family appear to be vaguely British and speak received pronunciation, but the script has them using American English phrasing (so 'candy bar' not 'chocolate bar' etc). It would be informative if the article could document this production decision and the reasons behind it. The dialogue sounds distinctly odd to a British audience, and it's not clear why Burton didn't choose to make the Buckets Americans. --Ef80 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot ending is wrong

To the guy who removed my edit: The plot, as it is, is wrong at the end. Charlie does reject Wonka's offer at first, but then some other events happen and afterwards he does accept the offer, with one condition. That part is missing, making the plot wrong and incomplete! Naki (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Different Wonka actress?

Back in 2008, I was looking at the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory cast, and I saw that the guy who played Mr. Wonka was not Johnny Depp. I forgot who it was but I would like to know an explanation for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.238.19 (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Either the article had been vandalized or you were looking at Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (based on the same novel). - SummerPhD (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 2005 sequel?

Are there any signs of a sequel to this 2005 version? If there is, then there should be a note.--68.186.238.19 (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

vandal alert!

attention! there's a vandal ip altering this article for their own benefit. noticably saying where the chocolate factory is and that there was a pound note in the snow. WRONG! I need someone to ban this vandal ip ASAP. Better yet, immediately. Visokor (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've requested page protection to prevent editing by unregistered and newly registered editors. Should the need arise again, you can file the request yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Vandal 64.151.2.245 has obviously returned. I still think it's best to ban this ip altogether. Visokor (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to report them at WP:AIV, Visokor. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Profanity must be removed

There is strong, offensive profanity on this page (in the "Development" section), and I feel that the quote, whether or not it is true or vandalism, is unnecessary and should be removed. However, the page is "semi-protected from vandalism" so I am unable to remove it. Please help. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireball777 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fireball777: I assume you are referring to Burton's quote where he says "fuck". While Wikipedia is not censored (per WP:CENSOR), I think we could amend it to be more direct since that part of his quote is redundant with his calling the characters weird. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Made the change as seen here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Reply by Fireball777: Yes, that is what I was referring to. Thank you for removing it. In my humble opinion, profanity should be banned from Wikipedia, or at least censored. Profanity is especially not needed on an article about a family film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireball777 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 December 2013
Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel it should be, you will need to establish a consensus considerably higher than the level of this individual article. Making an edit in response to a request for censorship while claiming it was to make the quote "more succinct" is dishonest.
Yeah, it's about a family film. Yeah, he said "fuck". Every article on Wikipedia is three or fewer clicks away from far stronger content than that. This article -> Nicolas Cage -> Wild at Heart (film) -> Orgasm. Horrors. Or this article -> Father figure - > Gender identity -> Sex organ (with full color photos).
The full quote clearly emphasizes belief that the source material was more than merely "weird". Compare "these characters were weird... but they left a strong impression on you" versus "these characters were weird," Burton reflected. "You think back and go, 'What the fuck was that?' But they left a strong impression on you". The shorter version dulls the point. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't appreciate my edit being called dishonest. It was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone. I disagree that it loses meaning with the shortening. The article quotes at length, and there is more shortening, especially of Burton, that could be done. If anything, Burton is too flavored up in this article, when we should be writing in a more neutral tone. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Your edit was not to make it "more succinct without losing meaning". You censored the article in response to the direct request to censor the article. Of the two birds you sought to kill, that particular "bird" does not exist and we shouldn't be working to kill it. We should not be trying to remove Burton's flavor and make him more neutral. He is a flavorful, non-neutral person.
If you'd like to trim the quote, yank the first half: "You think back and go, 'What the fuck was that?' But they left a strong impression on you. It was kind of a strange amalgamation of these weird children's TV show hosts." That way, you make it "more succinct" without censoring it. Problem = solved. Non-problem = not addressed. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:PROFANE says, "Objective terminology is more helpful than subjective terminology." I think the inverse is possible, that vulgarity can be quoted out of glee, even though it is not necessary to do so. (I unfortunately recall doing that one time myself.) What I did was just an effort to address a concern with an incidental approach since we have different ways to word it, especially with a more cross-cultural focus, since "What the fuck was that?" could be too informal or incomprehensible per WP:SLANG. I don't think WP:CENSOR means defending every instance of profanity; it means defending profanity where it was suitably used. Obviously we differ on that need here. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, when discussing whether or not to include the content, "Objective terminology is more helpful than subjective terminology." That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not the whole quote should be used. Objectively, the section was removed in response to a direct request that we censor the article. Objectively, you went along with that request while giving a different reason for your action in the edit summary. After being challenged, you seem to have decided that your edit summary outlined the reason for the edit. Wikipedia is not censored, except when we censor it while creating post hoc reasoning for the censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 00:33, December 19, 2013‎
Like I stated, the edit would improve the passage by focusing its meaning and excluding a colloquial fragment ("What the fuck was that?") that also addresses one editor's concern. "Wikipedia is not censored" is not a call to arms to defend every use of profanity. Like WP:PROFANE says, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." To contrast this passage with another, Hancock (film)#Marketing uses "fuck" in context that cannot be omitted. Here, I think it can be without losing meaning. His use of the word "fuck" has nothing to do with his vision for this film. It was just a turn of phrase that will not translate universally. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Like I stated, I have no interest in "addressing on editor's concern" when that concern runs counter to a "cornerstone of Wikipedia policy". You removed the material because one reader found it offensive. "Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers." A reader asked for the article to be censored. You suddenly decided there is a problem with the article completely unrelated to that request that just happens to result in the exact edit the censor wanted? Pardon my language, but what are the fucking chances of that? You think we can leave out part of the quote "without losing meaning". I disagree. You've created a reason after the fact to justify removing the material because of ... something about being "more direct", maybe it was included out of glee, we should use "objective terminology", "cross-cultural focus", etc. Your "effort to address a concern with an incidental approach since we have different ways to word it, especially with a more cross-cultural focus" is an effort to censor the article. The "concern", as stated, is that "profanity should be banned from Wikipedia, or at least censored". Yes, you addressed that "concern" by censoring the article. "When a mommy and a daddy love each other very much and want to make a baby, the mommy and daddy share a special hug..." - SummerPhD (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
If this instance was like the Hancock example I mentioned (I included that), then I would support its use here. I disagree with Fireball777's reasons to remove the word, but I made the edit to resolve a contentious manner without losing meaning. If this was a case of a PG-rated family film using the word fuck, and there was coverage about it, I would support and even strengthen the case for inclusion. Here, its use is very much an aside and does not fit the formal tone of an encyclopedia. I think there is a distinction between these kinds of asides and substantial uses like the example I mentioned, as we can see from what I quoted from WP:PROFANE. If you disagree, we can get other opinions. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The "contentious manner" you edited to resolve was a request to censor the article. You "resolved" it by censoring the article. Yes, people talking in interviews will often say things that are not in the "formal tone of an encyclopedia". The point is moot. We are not writing what he said, we are reporting it. You cannot "resolve" a request for censorship by censoring and then say it isn't censorship because you can create various pseudo-reasons for making the edit after the fact. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Reply by Fireball777: Seriously!? It doesn't matter that other articles about adult movies and topics contain such language -- I repeat: this is an article about a FAMILY FILM. There is NO NEED for that vulgar quote on this page. It is completely irrelevant. Is it really important information to include Burton's "flavour"? This is an article about the FILM, not about Tim Burton. Erik's edit was fine. He simply removed a small part of the quote. Why not remove that quote entirely -- that should take care of this censorship disagreement. . . —Preceding undated comment added 02:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Seriously. I may make you sick and not understand how earth-shatteringly serious it is that the word "fuck" appears here.[1] Anyone who doesn't know what the word means will likely be puzzled. Anyone who does know what it means won't have read anything new. Civilization will continue. Wikipedia is not censored. Special pleading for this article about a PG film is not helpful. If you would like Wikipedia to censor some articles, you'll need to take this to a higher level. I'd suggest you team up with the people fighting the video clip and photos in Ejaculation. Yes, this is about the film. Surprisingly, some people consider the director to be a significant part of the film. Burton's flavor is evident throughout every one of his films. Removing indications of that out of some misplaced sensibility. Some material in this PG film may not be suitable for children. I'd suggest you guide children on Wikipedia as well. This article, with one "fuck" is currently PG. Other articles linked directly from here are far harsher. If you seriously intend to take out your Sharpie to censor this encyclopedia and think that one little word is a meaningful start, your really haven't been through much of Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2014

A link should be included for Jordan Fry's page on Wikipedia in the cast listing. 120.146.186.233 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Done  NQ  talk 07:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

10th Anniversary

The 10th Anniversary Edition is coming out soon, isn't it? There should be a note, in my opinion. Throast (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"Pre-producation"

Can someone fix the spelling error in the paragraph title Pre-producation, please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.242.41 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Actors considered for Willy Wonka

Could you add these actors to the page. They were all considered for Willy Wonka.

Bill Murray, Christopher Walken, Steve Martin, Robin Williams, Nicolas Cage, Jim Carrey, Michael Keaton,[1] Robert De Niro, Brad Pitt, Rowan Atkinson, Will Smith,[2] Mike Myers, Ben Stiller, Leslie Nielsen, Dwayne Johnson, Michael Palin, John Cleese, Eric Idle, Michael Palin, Patrick Stewart and Adam Sandler. 86.30.216.33 (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. With the exception of Rowan Atkinson, all of these actors are already listed on the page. Kindly provide a source Atkinson was considered Cannolis (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2015

In the description of the plot, Julia Winter and AnnaSophia Robb's character portrayals are switched. Julia Winter did not play Violet, she played Veruca. AnnaSophia Robb did not play Veruca, she played Violet.

FionaWalliceFan (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015

The film said that Veruca Salt was from Buckinghamshire, not London.

107.145.123.215 (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Inomyabcs (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2015

Julia Winter and Jordan Fry's links should be removed since they redirect right back to the same page.

107.145.123.215 (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016

Category:Films about dysfunctional families 76.88.107.122 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Why? From what I remember, this film is far more about magic candy Cannolis (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Source for "Depp said he was disappointed by Wilder's comment"

Where does the cited source say that "Depp said he was disappointed by Wilder's comment". I read the cited article, but I didn't find any reference to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seitz (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this actually a British film?

If you look at the source, it gives a weak explanation of the categorization as the film having a production company registered in the UK but none of our articles on the production companies hint that said companies might be British. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It is, here is the UK company: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b9af168ab and https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/OC308332/filing-history -- 86.2.174.27 (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

charlie rejects the offer

When Charlie rejects the offer, Willy Wonka flies back to the factory in his great glass elevator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.190.21 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Grandpa Joe

When Grandpa Joes sees the Golden ticket, he jumps out of bed and dances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.161.239 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

Add under the 'production' subtitle that Charlies house and surrounding towns were designed in such a way that was ambiguous, so that audience did not know where exactly the story took place geographically Lizardtree (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Lizardtree, if you need help finding references, visit the reference desk. Seagull123 Φ 11:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference difficult was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference truth was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory_(film)/Archive_3&oldid=1142755754"