Talk:Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Boat ride as "acid trip"?

Did anybody see this in first run? Did anybody interpret the boat ride as a trip back then? --Robert Merkel

Except for the images of spiders and snakes shown in the film, the words of the song Willy Wonka sings, the wild boat ride and the sudden arrival at their destination are all in the book, though not as intense. GUllman 17:43, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wonka factory name

there is a real candy factory by the same name. what is the relationship? - Omegatron 15:54, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Omegatron: Perhaps you're referring to this? http://www.davidlwolper.com/shows/details.cfm?showID=276

Sounds like it, basically. See the main article on Willy Wonka for the scoop on the candy brand. --Quuxplusone 23:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fate of "losing" children

The comment that you don't find out the fate of the other children is incorrect. Willy Wonka says what happens to them (sent home with the prize chocolate) as they are about to board the great glass elevator. --emb021

Actually in the film he just says they are fine and "maybe a little wiser". While OR Dr Walpurgis's comments in alt.horror in the "WILLY WONKA NG" thread do indicate that things may not be as they appear.

For example, look at the Wonkamobile and note there are only enough seats for the people who arrive on this stage of the journey. Clearly something is as they say up--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Parodies section

Okay, why would someone erase my Parodies entry (which had the Futurama one, but there have been others)? Parodies are good for the likes of The Seventh Seal, but for Willy Wonka it is verboten? I'd file a formal protest if I thought it was worth it (not really) - John DiFool

Unless I missed something, the parodies are intact. David L Rattigan 1716 GMT JULY 15 2005

Perhaps a revert was done... by John DiFool himself? =P Kareeser 02:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Interpretation" section

This section borders on original research, with little wikifying and no cited references. Could we clean this up a bit and make it more encyclopedia-worthy? Lovelac7 04:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

About the differences (major re-org proposal)

If you go to Talk:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (movie)#About the differences, I have suggested consolidating all the differences between the book, and two movies, into one table, with concise entries. In addition to changing the 2005 article, it would be good to move the "differences" section in this article, over there (with a suitable link from here). Some of the "comparison" section would stay here (such as the author's opinion of the 1971 film). Anyhow, it's just an idea at this stage, and would welcome opinions. It would remove lots of redundancy. --rob 09:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If I remember rightly, that particular section of the entry isn't very well-written anyway. David L Rattigan 1202 31 JULY 2005 GMT

I created a table of comparisons at Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory#Differences from the book and prior film. I would like to suggest people add to it, as needed, and eventually, when complete, it could be come the "single" place for comparisons. That would avoid all the redunancy's of comparisons. Then, when fixes/corrections are made, they can be done in just one spot in the future. --rob 01:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Essay on Interpretations

I have moved the following text from the article because I think it too like an essay in its current form:

It has been speculated that each of the children represents one or two of the Seven Deadly Sins. It's generally agreed that Augustus Gloop stands for Gluttony and Veruca Salt for Greed; the others are harder to pin down but various interpretations can work. Mike Teavee is both lazy (by doing nothing but sitting at a screen all day) and a fan of violence (by his love of gangster movies, and Westerns in which the killings are his favorite part). It can be argued that he stands for both Sloth and Wrath (or Anger). Pride would seem to fall to Violet, as she is inordinately proud of her dubious gum-chewing accomplishments. One could also argue that Violet's gum-chewing is but one extension of a sloppy, careless, unmannered personality, and that she too could represent Sloth (however, because of changes to the characters, Violet in the 2005 film would not hold up to this interpretation). Lust would not seem to apply to any child, since they are all too young to feel sexual desire, but if one loosens its definition to cover all sensual pleasures, it can be argued that Charlie is the Lust personification, because of his extreme longing for sweets.

Part of the reason this appears like an essay is its lack of sourcing ("It has been speculated" [by whom?]. "It's generally agreed" [by whom?]) and its use of rhetoric ("It can be argued"). Simply removing these clauses will not address the underlying issue: this section is probably personal opinion. The piece needs to cite its verifiable, reputable source. It can then be restored to the article in a more encyclopedic form. —Theo (Talk) 22:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Even the remaining "interpretation" section should go, without sources, otherwise every viewer of the movie is going to give us their personal take on each part of it. --rob 23:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I added the section on the Seven Deadly Sins interpretation, and based on your reasoning, agree with your decision to remove it. This interpretation was combined and consensed from my and several other people's essays on the subject, and as they are not published sources, probably don't belong here. However, shouldn't the entire "Interpretations" section then be removed? What is the encyclopedic background for the existing first paragraph? I agree with rob's previous post, as I probably would not have added to this section if it didn't exist in the first place. -- P Woodson

OK, I have now removed the other interpretation paragraph, which read:

One Christian interpretation of the movie is that it represents evil and temptation. Wonka represents a king of pleasure and tricks. Wonka first causes chaos throughout the world for a desire for "gold" tickets to a land that no one returns from or can go to, which parodies purgatory. The factory is run by small red slaves much like demons for the devil. Wonka says he brought them from a dark place of "nothing but desolate wastes and fierce beasts" and they would much rather serve as Wonka's slaves than return to the excruciating reality of their realm. He has the children sign away their safety for a trip into his "world of pure imagination." First showing the children a heavenly land and then a hellish river of dark sweets, then allowing each of the children to fall victim to their own sins and temptations. (Via gluttony, obsession, greed, sloth, etc.) If one can make it through the factory with out falling to the temptations he makes them the new king of his land.

I have a policy of removing one element at a time. It elicits the most reasoned responses (of which that by "P Woodson" is exemplary). Perhaps this earlier "interpretation" has a published source. —Theo (Talk) 16:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Synopsis

This section needs rewriting, mainly because there is no actual synopsis contained in it. The other film and the book both have a description of the storyline, this does not. kevin 15:03, 01 August 2005

Location of Chocolate Factory

It is not established which country this film is set in. I don't think it's Britain because there's an scene where Britain's last Wonka Bars are auctioned off (Queen Elizabeth II wins the bid).The location work was done in Munich, Germany)

Good point. The Wonka Facts website says the following:

• During the filming the crew ran into a small problem. You see, the movie was filmed in Germany but they needed American cars to set the setting in the U.S.. Diana Sowle (Mrs. Bucket) came to the rescue. At the time she was living on a U.S. military base in Germanyy so she asked her American neighbors if they could borrow their cars for the film. Several agreed and the problem was solved. The crew had the American cars that they needed to line the streets in the film.

So, if that's true then the film was meant to take place in the U.S. Perhaps we should add that to the article?

--User:kevinsnow 09 August 2005

Setting in the US?? The tinker; the candyman; the school teacher-all are English. Certainly Mr Salt offers "Pounds" to Wonka to buy a golden goose-no money changing to the dollar!! Yet if Wonka's factory is supposed to be in England-the town its located it is certainly Continental Europe Munich-certainly not the USA!!!

possible but not a fact, just speculation. Just because I offer to pay someone in pecos, doesn't mean I'm not still in the US. Yes i know that sounds silly but we just can't be sure. It could have been a mistake also, if the movie was supposed to take place in the US but was filmed somewhere else, it would make sense that one of the actors mistakingly said pounds instead of dollars. 174.42.206.246 (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2010 (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. Any deletion or merging resulting from that, may effect this article. You may wish to visit the AFD page to have input. --rob 18:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of Mrs. Teevee and Mike Teevee

The credits in the 1971 movie specifically state that the names are spelled "Teevee", and not "Teavee".

My changes keep getting reversed, so could someone give me a proof of the latter? Kareeser 00:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

IMDB cast and crew listing, if that helps

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/fullcredits

Nora Denney .... Mrs. Teevee (as Dodo Denney)

Paris Themmen .... Mike Teevee

-- 201.51.166.124 03:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

if you watch the 1971 movie during the scene where they must sign their names to the contract once in the entryway of the factory, mike signs his name mike T.V. Laurenatuw (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oompa Loompas

"sanctimonious orange midgets (the Oompa Loompas)"

Changed "midgets" to "pygmies". The Oompa Loompas are not unusually short members of their society, but are rather a race of unusually short people. -- 201.51.166.124 03:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Italic textbotty booty booty booty booty booty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.151.178 (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Youth for Wonka

Why youth for Wonka?? In the movies they always choose an obviously young man to place Willy Wonka. Why havn't they chossen someone closer in age to Willy Wonka in the book? (I heard a rumor years ago that Fred Astaire was considered for the 1971 movie-true??)

If you follow the link from the article to the interview with director Mel Stuart, you'll see he denies that Fred Astaire was ever considered for the role. I love Wilder in the role, even more since seeing Depp, whom I disliked. User:David L Rattigan 0856 30 April 2006 GMT

Really? I thought Depp was perfect (had a little bit of a "michal jackson" twist on the character that actually really fit) but I'm assuming the reason they pick younger actors is because the character is supposed to be lively and eccentric. Might be hard for most older actors to bounce around like a cartoon charecter.174.42.206.246 (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie's Test and different ending for movie

How about a different ending to the movie?:

• All five children come through the factory tour;
• At the end "Sluggworth" appears and offers bribes to all of them for gobstoppers; {remember Wonka made the children promise not to give gobbstoppers to anyone else!)
• At least two-Veruca Salt and possibly Mike Teevee and Mrs Teevee-accept the bribe.
• Two childern begin stuffing themsleves with lifetime supply of candy-Augustus Gloop with Chocolate and Violet with gum.
• Wonka picks Charlie Bucket not only becuase he is the only one left but also becuase he is the one Wonka likes best-just as in the book

Um, considering this is something you just made up, it doesn't fit the crieria for an encyclopedia article. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a free speech venue. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 16:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Wonka could fight Martians and save the planet. Then he could help Santa deliver presents and...  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Something Interesting

At the end of the film, Willy Wonka, in the Great Glass Wonkavator, tells Charlie that he couldn't except an adult as an heir for the factory since an adult would want to do things their way. The director rejected Dahl's original script and did things his way, not like Dahl wanted. --68.37.116.234 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Did the other kids die in the movie? (Bjorn Tipling 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC))

It was never revealed what happened to the children since the movie ended shortly after Charlie won the prize, so it's up the the viewer to decide. If you follow the book, the four losers leave alive but having learnt a lesson. Otherwise, you can believe that the children met grisly deaths in a fudge oven, juicing room, furnace, and taffy stretcher. MUAHAHA! Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In the movie Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory-At the end when Charlie asks about the other kids, Wonka remarks that they will be their normal nasty selves-but maybe a little wiser. In the book Charlie, Grandpa Joe and Wonka look down at the other children going home: Augustus is thin as straw; Mike Tvee is thin as a wire; Beureguard is normal although she is stained blue in the face; the Salts are unharmed except for being covered in garbage.