Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the Superior Version (4k Subscriber Special!)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2021
- Two incredibly different adaptations of a much-beloved book. However, one gets the shaft because the other is viewed as a classic. Let's fix that. Shall we?
Be sure to support us on our Patreon!
/ mediamementos
Thumbnail by: youtube.com/@timey_103?featur...
For those who are about to complain that this video is only about book accuracy, you do realize that’s only the first half, right? I say as much in the video, specially at 1:00. Half of this video is judging both movie as adaptations, and the other half is judging them as movies period. You don’t have to agree with me, but please don’t dismiss me because you only watched the first half and decided to judge the whole video by one section.
Also, the video is 480p because of an editing error. We didn’t notice until months later. It’s too late to redo it now, and the editor who did the video and artwork is no longer working with this channel.
It’s all good! It wasn’t just you. I get dozens of these a day. Just thought I’d clear it up. I’m not embarrassed about anything here (except maybe my voice since this was before I developed that skill better). But yeah! You’re alright!
bro knew we were getting this recommended 2 years later lol
Ok
Happy algorithm boost! I was recommended this after watching an anime opening.
you compared it to the live action disney remakes and cat in the hat, its amazing people arent flaming you more
Here's a weird observation: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is more about Charlie, while Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is more about Willy Wonka.
Never noticed that 😶😶
True
I think the refocusing also makes for a more interesting character study, as Charlie is able to influence someone rather than simply remaining the perspective character.
Nice Irony
The use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, now that IS irony
"Everything in this room is edible, even me. But that's called cannibalism, and most people frown upon it."
That's not the exact quote, but close enough...
And my fav. Line from CATCF
I still love that line. Willy Wonka seems like the kind of person who would kill people, but that line made things clear he wasn't THAT crazy.
I’m going to be pedantic because I love thrusting this quote around…
“Everything in this room is eatable, even I’m eatable. But that is called ‘cannibalism’ my dear children, and is in fact frowned upon in most societies. Yeah.”
How'd you fuck up a quote
”Everything in this *room* is eatable. Even _I’m_ eatable, but that is called *cannibalism* , my dear children, and is, in fact, frowned upon in *_most_* societies.”
I'm pretty sure they say «edible» 🤔
Aniways, good comment, iconic scene
@@niidea927 no, he says “eatable”. Yes, “edible” is correct, but the quote is “eatable”
@@jaypaint4855 Mm, interesting. Thanks!
@@niidea927 there are a lot of things in that room that probably arent edible, but are technically eatable
hehe rimworld
I feel like the reason why Charlie was lamented so much was because Willy Wonka had inadvertently caused everyone to interpret the source material as that movie. Hollywood in the 2000s were constantly churning out "darker and edgier" versions of classics that fell flat and weren't faithful to the original. Tim Burton was accused of doing the same thing, but nobody realized the book was always that dark. It probably would've cleared up a ton of confusion by calling it "Roald Dhal's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and marketed that it was faithful to the book.
I agree with you on that. If Tim Burton made the movie title called, “Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”, it would’ve cleared a lot of confusion that was going on sorting the 2000’s. That way it would’ve told the audience that this adaptation, is the faithful version based on the book. Not Tim Burton’s, but specifically Roald Dahl’s; due to the fact how both the book and movie were both dark. And that was the whole theme and style what Dahl was going for!
But it's not like the book. If you think it's like the book you've clearly never read it.
Its not that its "dark", its thats its stupid. With god awful songs and Johnny's stupid MJ impersonation. The world is even built wrong with the outside world being just as whimsical as inside the factory which is crazy since Tim also did beetlejuice and built those worlds correctly.
@@TheFakeyCakeMaker "You've clearly never real it" projecting much?
@@TheFakeyCakeMaker Yes, it is. Well, apart from the inclusion of Willy Wonka's dad, that is. Most of everything else is pretty faithful.
I completely understand Wonka’s trauma. I would be scarred if my father were Count Dooku.
And Saruman
LLLLLOLLIPOP.
@@briandust193 LLLLOLIPOPPPSSS ON A S T I C K
saru the saruman man
_”Welcome home, Lord Tyranus.”_
Something I think people keep forgetting is that Charlie, in Charlie and the chocolate factory, did wind up accepting the chocolate factory, but on the condition that his family is brought with him, and after reuniting Wonka with his father, Wonka accepted this condition, somehow moving the bucket families house into the chocolate lake room and sharing dinner with the bucket family on a seemingly regular basis.
Exactly. And I personally support that decision, as it proves who Charlie truly is.
yeah im confused at why people act like it was a final refusal - in the end he accepts it, but without giving up those he cares about, a thing that wonka himself accepts, its part of wonka realizing that while yes his dad wasnt very good it does not mean all families are bad and all people will share the same sentiment
he even goes to visit his father and try to make amends, since he realizes that he does desire company after all
I'm surprised anyone forgot that, honestly. Charlie himself made it clear that the entire reason why he declined at first is because his family means more to him, even if they are living in a little rundown shack. Once Wonka agrees to Charlie's condition of moving his family into the factory, then Charlie has no reason to decline again.
Yeah, when it was brought up in this video that Charlie turned down the factory, my immediate thought was "wait, that's not right, is it?"
@mrreyes5004 I honestly thought that part was very sweet, Wonka is kind of accepted in to Charlies family which is a nice little wrap up to the backstory they gave Wonka
1971 Mike: *Arguably the best of the kids*
2005 Mike: *Arguably the worst of the kids*
He wasn't really that bad tbh, just angry and aggressive, the worst thing he does is say kinda rude stuff and endanger himself. Salt was the most evil.
@@ToxicBastard I agree, I was just referring to Media Mementos' opinion. Imo, the worst kid depends on the version of the story:
Book - Mike
1971 - Veruca
2005 - Violet
@@ashhabimran239i think veruca was also the worst in the book in the book willy wonka literally says "your a nice kid( but you talk too much)"
Not too sure about Violet in 2005@@ashhabimran239
The kids are WAY more detestable in the 2005 movie.
Also, a little detail that I really like is how ghostly pale and awkward Willy Wonka is in the 2005 version. He likely hasn’t seen sunlight or people similar to locals for more than a decade, he’s going to be awkward, pale, and odd, not tan, charming, and full of life.
Willy wonka is a weird character, not someone that you would feel comfortable around, he sticks out like a sore thumb, even with the other kooky characters. To the point where he even walks different from everyone else.
Johnny Depp is basically Micheal Jackson as Willy Wonka. A genius artist and businessman who is very white, feminine and a weird man-child. Lol
Too many people hate on Depp's Wonka for being too goofy and weird, which I see as complete and utter nonsense. That's EXACTLY what the character is supposed to be like!
I agree 100%. And I never liked bug-eyed Gene Wilder with the comb-over hair, he was miscast. Johnny Depp gave an actor's take on the character and it was a triumph
Yeah, I hate how much they watered him down with the original movie adaptation all for the sake of "being more appealing". They totally misunderstood his character, and it's hard not to see it as intentional.
@@disneyvillainsfan1666 Yeah! Like, have they ever read a Roald Dahl book or seen any other Roald Dahl movie adaptation before???
The part where Willy and Wilbur reconcile was based on Tim Burton’s life. He visited his dying mother and she had posters of the films he worked on. She still loved him. Even with the strained relationship.
She even had a scrapbook of the reviews of his films.
that's adorable🥺
Yeah...that storyline did feel like it came from a genuine place. It really stuck with me even as a kid.
The fact that the Charlie version is more accurate is irrelevant to which is the better movie.... The original on is by far the better movie....
CGI oompalumpas rapping, Tim Burton existing etc is cringy as fuck
The original one has charm, a memorable soundtrack, isn't full of terrible CGI... Yes it flopped on release, but the fact that once ppl actually saw it it became a cult classic, the Charlie version is forgettable
@@schmerzdj5719Okay Boomer
Honestly Slugworth would’ve been way better if they revealed him at the end as secretly just being a tower of Oompa Loompas in a trenchcoat and makeup
Ooompa loompa doopity dooo
Actually that'd be interesting
Good idea.
I feel like that would look better in an animated movie, but there's a girl turning into a fruit. I guess this is a world where cartoony things like that can apply
¿Por qué sería una torre de pompa loompas?
Fun fact:the squirrel weren't cgi they actually trained 40 squirrels
So there's a murderous squirrel somewhere in the wild
It was half and half.
half were real trained squirrels
the other half were just puppets
@@jokerofspades-xt3bs I thought the squirrels looked way too good for 2005 xD No wonder
Some were real some CGI and some animatronics
The 1971 version is brighter but more surreal and creepy; the 2005 one is darker but funnier and more conventional. It's weird how that works.
The 1971 has its flaws, but Gene Wilder's Wonka is very real and dangerous in being focused while not always making sense, not just some one-dimensional nutty lunatic.
@@mipmipmipmipmip One-dimensional? You're actually calling the fleshed-out Wonka with a backstory and personal struggle one-dimensional? Wilder's Wonka is still a lunatic, and if you actually pay attention, there's more to Depp's Wonka
Lol Depp’s Wonka is more flashed out then Wilder’s could ever dream of being
@@mipmipmipmipmipBUT THE ROWERS KEEP ON ROWING!!!
@@mipmipmipmipmip it was 1971
I always really appreciated the fact that Tim Burton makes a point to show the audience that despite everything, all the kids made it out alive. It had a hopeful ending. Violet can't compete anymore, and is free from that burden. Varuca's dad finally said no to her. Augustus will have to learn self control, and Mike got a taste of violence and learned to shut up. Lessons were learned. I always thought all the kids in the original just straight up died lol
Damn straight fam. It felt great to see how Violet's mother was a bit pissed but knew that at no point she could really scold Violet directly because it's the oompa loompas who took the decision. Or something along the lines of knowing that Violet can't be a portrait of her anymore, she even literally changes color and aspect!
I get your end of it but the original 1971 was mostly to leave it off on a cliffhanger to let the audience decide if they survived or not. So it gave us the audience to fill in the blanks of whether they lived or died, which makes it more fun as a guessing game to see if they either lived or not. The 2005 film, well, they showed it and they all lived. So it doesn't make it as fun as saying "Well I believe Violet in the 1971 survived" while someone else said "No they died from exploding." SO to me the 1971 is more debatable than the 2005 one in my opinion, but to each their own.
@victorfunnyman I totally respect your opinion! I think they're both great and fun! My dad remembers seeing the 70s one as a kid. He watched it in school one day. Him, and many other kids were left feeling uneasy because they thought the kids all died LOL. I think "scary" children's movies are fun, and despite being afraid of the movie a bit, my dad has fond memories of the older one.
I mean, Violet COULD still compete. Have you seen the concealors that exist nowadays for tattooed skin?
@@SuperFlashDriverI liked the original ending where Charlie actually does have the "happily ever after" he always was looking for. Whereas, if you look at the book, which I've read two times now, the second one realizing the dark humor that Dahl had in that story, but I think Gene Wilder played the somewhat aloof and cookie middle-aged Wonka but still with his humility and love of exploration and fun really played that well. Johnny played the REALLY aloof and WEIRD Wonka which is more what Wonka is like in the books.
He's almost initially scary to Charlie because of his aloof and weird ways of talking. Eventually, as the story goes on, and by the time the ending comes around, I always noticed that the original movie is not the book or the remakes version, and instead still feel that the original is superior in a lot of ways.
However, Dahl did say that he never liked the original movie ending because it took away from the story's ending in which Charlie comes to realize that he does not NEED these material things and does not NEED or want for this giant factory, since he realizes he has no need for that.
He is shown to have friends and to have family who loves and care about him. He has teachers who love his intelligence and bright mind even at just 12. He has people who he realizes care about him and sacrifice for him.
So that he can have a better future.
I think what bothers me the most about Willy Wonka vs. Charlie is that so many people assume the later is a remake of the former, rather than a different adaption of the same novel.
It's a completely arbitrary distinction.
@@HOTD108_ Not really. For most people, when they think of Willy Wonka they aren’t thinking of a children’s book character created by Ronald Dahl, but rather a movie character portrayed by Gene Wilder. When people hear Oompa Loompa, they think of weird orange skinned and green haired people.
Whether you’re judging something as an adaptation of a book versus a remake of a movie adaptation matters. It’s why when people look at the 2019 Aladdin they don’t critique it for failing to adapt the original story from 1001 Arabian Nights; they critique it for failing to adapt the 1993 animated film.
@@HOTD108_It is not an arbitrary distinction because Charlie is a faithful adaptation of the book. Willy Wonka is not.
@@andrewface2355Charlie also include backstory not found in original book so not really faithful
I didn't even know there is an old version. They never played it in Europe TV and mostly gave more yearly screen time to newer version
There IS a reason as to why Charlie in the 2005 movie is so bland. He’s just suppressing his autism before he grows up, changes his name and relocates to California where he goes to work at a hospital.
I AM A SURGEON
Don’t forget he later became an anime robot too.
I don't think you'll ever be able to truly separate these two films in the public consciousness, but I appreciate someone finally coming out and showing why Charlie isn't even remotely as bad as everyone made it out to be at the time. It genuinely pisses me off that the Charlie got so thoroughly shafted before it had a chance to even come out the gate by a bunch of people with rose-tinted glasses and a vast misunderstanding of what a remake even is.
I think my primary problem with Charlie is that the titular character is basically jesus. His dialogue is too saccharine sweet and good, he's not a real child, he's like some sort of stand in for the idea of goodness. There's no conflict here because the boy has no flaws. While parts were funny, I also feel like there was far less imagination with a lot of the scenes. A lot of the rooms were sterile and lacked any personality, which while it's a factory, doesn't reflect Wonka's eccentricity.
@@tommaydag420 I think you've got it completely backwards. Dahl called the original movie too sappy and saccharine. Children are portrayed in many different ways. His conflict was having to turn down the factory, and he coldly roasted Wonka afterwards any way (I know it was comedic). What you said about the rooms was proven wrong by the video. The original sets were too basic
@@ashhabimran239 "proven" isn't the word. All that was given was an opinion. Subjective. Not fact.
lets not forget the ending is more close to the original books ending in he remake, although i remember a bigger version of the book focused on Charlie getting his whole family into the chocolate factory
@@tommaydag420I never saw Charlie as being saintly or basically Jesus as you put it, I saw a child who was forced to grow up because the circumstances in his life. He didn’t offer to sell the ticket because he is some willing martyr, he made the offer because he is all too aware that his family needed money in spite of the fact that they tried to hide the fact that his father lost his job from Charlie. You can tell by how unenthusiastically Charlie is when he makes the offer to sell the ticket, that he doesn’t really want to sell it. Cynical George being the one to convince him to not sell the ticket shows that even he realizes that Charlie just needs to be a kid.
I think the elephant in the room between these movies is that the 2005 version actually shows the other kids still alive and exiting the factory. In the 1971 version, the kids never show up again and you basically just have to take Wonka's word for it.
But you're blue
@@timothybush7050 - Ms. Boureguarde, 2005 -
😊
Plus that part was in the book, so again Charlie stays true while Wonka falls short.
So many people thought the kids died. It was a whole thing.
The squirrels weren’t CGI they’re real squirrels. Tim Burton asked animal rescue rangers to trained rescued squirrels to train nut cracking
@Greg Elchert I’d say the way the squirrels were animated for when Veruca was checked to see she’s a bad nut, that one squirrel is nicely animated, and didn’t feel stilted like how some animation productions do when mocaping humans.
Some parts were still animated. It’s special effects.
i've watched all the bonus features on my CatCF DVD. they did infact use real squirrels, trained them to run onto the chairs, crack the nuts and climb the stunt actor playing veruca. but, there also were a lot of CGI squirrels, like the one who knocks on her head, and her getting dragged down the hole
Because they were squirrels; real squirrels.
(And there were thousands)
This isn't some kind of metaphor,
Goddamn, this is real
It's amazing they were able to make the squirrels do anything. DVD extras mention that squirrels are very hard to train
"So let me get this straight, you think Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is actually _better_ than Willy Wonka?"
"I do. And I'm tired of pretending that it's not."
I'm tired of the cultish elitists of the first movie freaking out over this movie's existence. They don't hate this movie for being better/worse, they hate it for existing, and that absolutely stupid mentality that the original is always the best or that you can't beat the classics. Absolutely moronic mindset
@@ashhabimran239 I'd like to point out that before Charlie and the Chocolate factory came out I was so excited about it. I remember thinking, "Tim Burton the guy who made both Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice, is making one of my favorite childhood films, AND Johnny Depp who did amazing with Jack Sparrow is playing Willy Wonka? This sounds like it's going to be the perfect film." I had nothing but high hopes. I wanted to love it so bad.
But no matter how hard I tried. No matter how hard I tried to justify it to myself, and I did try to cause I wanted to love it. It never hit that spark of childlike whimsy like the first one for me. It just felt so much more cold and lifeless in ways I have trouble even fully articulating with words. Charlie and Grandpa Joe barely felt like characters when both of them had such warmth and personality in the original. Wonka made me feel uncomfortable instead of the chaotic evil sardonic force that was Gene Wilder's performance.
Not everyone who prefers the first movie are people who blindly believe the classics are better. Some people just have different tastes. Just like how there's nothing wrong with people like the video maker preferring Charlie and the Chocolate factory more, since it's all just kinda subjective towards what you're looking for.
@@ashhabimran239I mean, I’m not really apart of the “Willy Wonka” fandom and I guess I’m just a casual around here, but I have seen both movies many times, and for the love of god I can barely sit through 2005 without feeling bored compared to 1971 which just has iconic moments all throughout and is entertaining all throughout.
@@sardonicus1739 Normally I would understand, but the reasons you gave completely missed the point. The cold, grungy feel of this movie was completely intentional, child-like whimsy are the forefront with this ominous, sinister backdrop, it fits the theme of the story and doesn't sugar-coat it. Creepier yes, but not entirely lifeless while the original just feels cheap. Grandpa Joe wasn't very warm in the original, was more of a grumpy douche compared to the newer Joe, the real warm one. And Wonka is meant to weird you out, he weirds the rest of the characters out, and has a sinister look whenever the kids are in trouble
@ashhabimran239 .I think you're missing the point that my taste leans more towards the original. I'm not saying that the new one is necessarily bad. I even said myself. It's perfectly fine for people to like the grungier remake. I prefer the childlike whimsy of the first. I prefer seeing Wonka as a witty psychopath instead of a bad Michael Jackson stereotype. That's not me missing the point of the second one. I know it's suppose to be that way. It's me saying I prefer the tone of the first. I found this video nice and even agreed with a number of points he made. I'm not just trying to crap on the remake.
That being said I'm tired of people like you making this point about grandpa Joe though like you're not the hundreth I've heard make this same tired argument. The new Grandpa Joe is a piece of cardboard with little to no character. I got absolutely nothing out of his personality. Frankly, I think it's really dumb that people get so upset over original Grandpa Joe. The dude is supposed to be 96. Why are people expecting a 96 year old man to work? It says something more messed up about society that the mom is working her butt off nearly constantly as well as Charlie and still isn't receiving a living wage from her employers, and yet they're mad at Grandpa Joe for that instead if the exploitation of their family. It's like people can't help but push the capitalist hellhole that we're currently living in on to Grandpa Joe, where people long past retirement age need to work til they die and everyone just needs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps because there's no social safety net for Charlie's family, specifically because of predatory companies like Willy Wonka cuz they choose slave labor over hiring people in his community. Though it's not touched upon a the original. We know that Grandpa Joe specifically lost his job at Wonka's causing hundreds if not thousands to be layed off and throwing the local area into poverty since that was the main source of jobs in that area.
The original Grandpa Joe is obviously not perfect, he's stubborn, and gruff smoker who can come across as selfish, but it's so insane the degree of malice people tend to have towards his character, especially for being bed-bound. It feels like they miss the entire point that like all Road Dahl stories this is supposed to be a sort of magical tinged world where the power of chocolate revives him, and within the story was not meant to imply the Grandpa Joe was taking advantage of them. None of the characters in the moment felt that way. That's people over thinking the plot when it's suppose to have a fairy tale like feeling to it. Plus grandpa Joe not being a perfect saint actually makes him a better character. It's called character flaws. Where are the character flaws in the remake for Charlie or Grandpa Joe, that make them seem like real people? It feels like their only personality now is that they're poor and they're nice. The original Grandpa Joe's warmth comes from the fact that he wants Charlie to be allowed to just be a kid, because everyone else is making Charlie grow up so quickly. He wants Charlie to be able to believe in miracles and magic, and that Charlie simply wanting the ticket more means he's more likely to have it. The original Joe doesn't want that spark of childlike wonder to leave Charlie from being beaten down by the cold harsh world.. Almost all decisions that Grandpa Joe makes has that motivation. Nearly every time he's being gruff or rude it's nearly always a situation where he's defending Charlie's sense of innocence and wonder from people who want Charlie to grow up while he's still a child. You can sense through this sort of stuff that he deeply cares about Charlie and just wants his happiness more than anything else.
I'm sorry about the grandpa Joe rant. I'm just so tired of people treating the original like some inhuman monster.
For me, Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory is like the 1960's Batman TV series; It deserves its place in pop culture and is an interesting version of its property, but it shouldn't be the definitive version of its property.
Agreed! Man it always annoyed me when they said "come back next Monday to see what happens"
I WAITED A WHOLE WEEK TO BE LEFT WITH MORE CLIFF HANGERS!!!
There's A lot of nostalgia tied to that series and the wonka movie..
But the Charlie version is 100% better!!
It doesn’t deserve its place
After watching this video, I truly understand why Roald Dahl was *absolutely* not happy with the Willy Wonka film.
FR.
Im sure he would have liked the aesthetic of the new one a lot more. I think itd be interesting to hear his opinions on how they did Wonka’s backstory though. I wonder if he’d like it or if he would have preferred to keep the character more mysterious.
@@orange_turtle3412 what ever he would think about it, I'm sure it would be much better than what he would think about the new awful prequel to Wonka coming up.
@@wonkvii7008 I cringed so hard when I saw that thing. It has no reason to exist, other than money, and timothee chalemet is TERRIBLE as wonka from what we’ve seen. Its destined to fail.
The only reson he didn't like it is probably it took the story in a darker turn the newer one is so safe and lifeless
The bit where young Wonka goes to the flag museum and returns to find his house gone is one of the greatest comedic one-two punches in the history of cinema
it’s so unnecessarily funny, like bro how tf did he move THE WHOLE CONNECTED HOUSE? ESPECIALLY IN THE TIME HE WENT TO THE FLAG MUSEUM?😭😭😭
In the history of cinema? In the HISTORY of cinema? Wrong sir! Wrong! You lose! Good day sir!
@@Chronocrits
I think you don't know the difference between "one of the greatest" and "THE greatest".
@@Dosylaz Oh I definitely do. But ‘one of the greatest’ would only apply here if it meant in the top 500k +.
Yes absolutely. 😂
12:32 an example of such is: “Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?” Dumbledore asked calmly.
*_HARRYDIDYOUPUTYOURNAMEINTHEGOBLETOFFIYAH?!_*
Charlie and Grandpa Joe ALSO being irresponsible and almost dying, not staying away from the danger, doesn’t make them the stand-out team who deserves to inherit the factory like in the book
I personally liked Charlie turning down the factory and putting his foot down. Think about it. If Charlie had willingly abandoned his family for the factory, it would’ve been out of character for him and it’d be an awful addition to the story. Now, if Augustus, Veruca, Violet or Mike had made the choice to leave their families behind for the factory, I could see them doing that. But Charlie would never abandon his family. In fact, him staying with them makes him more likable. Also, Burton’s version is better than the Wilder version. I’ve got oven mitts on for that “hot take.”
Thank you! I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that. Wonka did say he was looking for the least rotten child, but even Charlie couldn’t agree on leaving his family; it shows that Charlie learned that, in reality, Wonka is a bully for taking pleasure in other people’s misery, all because Wonka has a superiority complex, along with a traumatizing “I have no son” disorder.
@@robbiewalker2831 Yeah, Charlie leaving his family or considering Wonka’s offer would’ve been bad for the movie.
I think he might’ve forgotten the part where he couldn’t bring his family with him
@@ryanhowe5753 Yep, Charlie wanted to bring his family, but Wonka was like, “Nope.” Charlie thus rightfully was like, “Screw that.”
I am certain Charlie did not abandon his family for the factory in the earlier Willy Wonka version either. Willy Wonka told Charlie Bucket he wanted him to move his whole Bucket family into the chocolate factory, and Charlie in the rest of the story had no reason to abandon his family for the factory. Charlie did not turn down the factory in the later Charlie version either, because he never had to choose between his family or the chocolate factory in either adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
I feel so validated by this video. I always preferred Charlie and the Chocolate factory but would always be told that Willy Wonka is the superior movie
honestly same, the newer one is just more enigmatic and whimsical. The old one is just... stale.
its hard to compete with peoples nostalgia and even more their ignorance of the books and authors vision. They arent wrong for liking one or the other but having the perspective helps everyone.
Imagine needing some guy to tell you a movie you like is good in order to feel "validated", actually pathetic...
@@illseeyaonthedarksideofthemoon remove foot from ass
Yesss!! Same! It's so annoying, I've always had arguments with people about it to cuz I always feel the need to defend it 😂.
I was genuinely surprised by all the hate Charlie and the Chocolate Factory got when it came out. It is such an entertaining movie, with great performances and atmosphere. That said, Willy Wonka is also entertaining in its weird low-budget way. Both movies can be appreciated without having to hate one or the other.
I'll be honest, I didn't even know it had a hate. I actually don't know IRL of any person who has seen the old movie, if you ask anyone in my country about Willy Wonka, they will always remember the Tim Burton's version
@@akaiyoru2681Same, it's much more popular in my country (at least for everyone I talked to about this), and I haven't met anyone who has seen the older version, I watched it myself only recently.
I haven't heard of the hate until I started browsing sites in English. I feel like it might be more of an American/British thing, since they grew up on the original more?
Same here, both movies are good, although I do find the newer version superior for pretty much all the reasons mentioned in this video
The Willy Wonka version is a decent movie in it's own right, although some of the changes they made in that one do irk me a bit (like the fizzy lifting drinks scene and golden geese room), but I don't hate it
My biggest problem with it is Burton. It’s sort of a double edged sword who should adapt it? Burton, obviously, but then it’s just another Burton Film. And Elfman in particular didn’t help. If you play Charlie and Alice’s scores back to back there barely distinguishable. It’s the same problem with Marvel they’re just mass produced and it’s boring. Burton’s best work is Big Eyes and that’s because it’s a regular movie with flashes of Burton.
I remember we read this book in school and saw the movie after we finished and cause I’m pretty young I had no fkn clue there was a willy wonka version and when I watched it, yeah I kinda prefer the later version more because the deviations from the book wasn’t nice for me
in my case i'm a gen z so charlie was the one i grew up watching and honestly when i entered the internet and saw everyone shitting on it, i felt bad tbh, like i felt like i was stupid for liking the movie so this video was a pleasant watch for me
Fellow Gen Z here who prefers the 2005 Charlie movie 👋
Good to know I’m not the only one
us late millennials/gen z grew up with the superior version of
@@user-ib1is7ny7r idk what it is but so many early-middle millennials are so condescending and spiteful of Gen-Z. It’s really sad.
Pretty much the same for me lol
one thing that wasn't mentioned about the fashion of Burton's adaptation is how much Mike Teavee stands out. the fashion and interior designs are over all very retro, except for the Factory with its very futuristic technology. you can see this in Mike Teavee's house as well. everyone fits into this mid 70s era (tracksuits were invented in the late 1930s), except for Mike. his hair and clothes are modern for the time. although the gaming console, the one we saw briefly in his introduction, fits this era as well, as it kinda looked like an Atari, the game that he's playing does not. it's a very "modern" looking game. I think it's very interesting that stylistically Mike Teavee is very much the odd one out.
Now that i think about it - yeah, his haircut and clothes must have been completely different.
But even the factory doesn't look futuristic in the way we see futuristic, it looks like what would have been a futuristic design in the 70s
@@hanneswiggenhorn2023 yeah, i should've clarified. I meant futuristic to the standards of 70s technology at the time. but yeah, the aesthetics of The Factory seem very much inspired by 70s futurism.
@@celestialstation "Retrofuturistic" if you will
@@dr.ramilo84Retroistic?
The bad kids in the newer version are both multidimensional and realistic. When I was young, I've met at least 1 exactly like the ones in this movie.
Augustus Gloop is gluttony personified. He doesn't eat because he's hungry. He eats because that's what food is for. It exists to be eaten by him. That's why he nearly has a heart when he enters the big room in the factory. A hungry person would just choose 1 type of candy, and eat until they were full. Augustus immediately starts gulping down everything, because the food needs to be eaten by him. It's also why he almost ate his Golden Ticket. The chocolate wrapper might as well not exist to him.
Violet Beauregard in the original was a strange case. She liked chewing gum, but her flaw was really more her lack of manners. In the newer version, it's all about competition. Everything in her life is a contest, and she NEEDS to win. Because if she doesn't win, she's a loser. Violet's mother is also clearly living through her daughter. Her own baton trophies don't matter anymore since the media only cares about the younger, cuter kid. So instead of gracefully growing old, she needs her daughter to become a clone of herself. This illusion is shattered when Violet turns purple, probably forever. She can no longer be a perfect reflection of her mother at a younger age.
Veruca Salt is similar to Augustus Gloop. She wants things, but not because she needs them. Veruca only sees value in things as long as they have her attention. Once she has it, it becomes worthless. Like when she receives her Golden Ticket. As soon as it is in her hands, it instantly loses all value to her, and she goes on to demanding something new. In the end, the Oompa Loompa's give her a bunch of actually worthless stuff that she literally can't refuse.
Mike Teavee is probably the most realistic kid of the bunch. Neglected by his parents, and instead raised by a screen. Instead of finding the Golden Ticket by chance, both he and Veruca cheated, though he only got his ticket to prove that he could. His high intellect is also probably why he lasted the longest out of the bad kids. He saw the other, dumber kids fall into these obvious traps. But he would prove himself as smarter. That is, until Wonka lures him to the TV room, and basically challenges him with the "teleporter". Of course Wonka considered using the thing to teleport people. He's just playing dumb to provoke Mike.
Very well said.
For Violet, Poor Sportsmanship counts as bad manners; I say this, because she called Charlie a loser, which leads to karma when she tries the Multi-Course Dinner Gum that turns her into a giant blueberry.
Oh, and as for the Teleporter thing, maybe Wonka would teleport people, but he decided to add a caveat, in case people were to THINK of teleporting themselves.
@@robbiewalker2831 I like to think that Violet's fate was more of a punishment for the mother than for her. Violet seems quite happy with her fate and her mother is disgusted.
Mike Teavee is the definition of "if I can, I should". He just gets the golden ticket because he can. He's a young genius who got too big for his boots because no one could keep up. The fates for the kids just seem more fitting to their personalities in the Charlie version.
I shudder to think there are people like this IRL.
A lot of people mostly hate on Wonka's haircut in the 2005 movie, but I would argue it fits him. It's weird and odd, yes, but that's exactly like the candymaker himself. Plus, it led to what I consider to be one of the best jokes in the movie.
And it actually looks like the illustration in the book.
Charlie: He also has a funny haircut 😒
Wonka: I do not! 😠
Side note, getting offended over a character's haircut feels really childish and nit-picky
I am so glad the 2005 adaptation included the Prince Pondicherry story. I remember as a kid when my mom read the book to me that was one of my favorite parts.
Personally, I think Tim Burton was the PERFECT choice to direct the movie, even his drawings hold an insane amount of likeness to Roald Dahl’s books (with maybe a little more detail) and the whole tone of the movie felt like children walking into a dream come true until it’s actually a trap that practically ruins their lives. Creepy stuff and Exactly what the book was going for
He made the inferior movie though. can’t believe anyone with a brain think that the johnny depp version is better. f ing simpletons
true but i think 80s tim burton would've done a better version than 00's tim burton
80s Tim Burton would have used Michael Keaton instead of Michael Jackson, I mean, Johnny Depp. In all seriousness though that is why people don't like the 2005 version. Johnny Depp used to be a good actor, but then he saw the success of Pirates of the Caribbean and said "got it... just do weird voices for the rest of my life".
@@bl3343Johnny’s still an incredible and iconic actor 🤷♂️
Uuuuh.. That's not why Johnny Depp was so popular. @@bl3343
I don't know why, but Mike Teevee in the Charlie version smashing the candy pumpkin filled with the gooey stuff inside is one of the most satisfying moments in all of cinema.
“Dad, he said enjoy.”
I saw the Charlie version quite a lot when I was little and Mike always reminded me of my bratty younger brother XD
@@jacobwansleeben I have actually never seen the Wonka version, only Charlie
Smashing pumpkins?
Additional points!!
the VHS smells like hot plastic when you take it out after watching.
_the DVD smells like chocolate_
Having Johnny Depp play Willy Wonka was the best option. I never knew Willy Wonka, The Mad Hatter and Jack sparrow were all played by the same actor until I looked into it. That's gotta be a sign of good acting
Blow, Fear and Loathing and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape are also great Depp films.
@@crazydrummer181 Ooooh, I know what I'm watching this Christmas. Thanks for the recs!
@@forestlin3697 you’re welcome! Heads up, none of those are movies for kids. Maybe Gilbert Grape but it still has adult moments in it.
People have said Michael Jackson would have made a good Wonka, but the problem with that is Wonka doesn’t care much for kids, whereas Michael loved kids and cared for them. It would have been against Michael’s personal values.
Though from strictly an acting standpoint, I can see Michael Jackson playing the role pretty well nonetheless.
@@AericLee23Depp literally plays winks as Jackson
I initially had a hypothesis about each child representing one of the seven deadly sins. Augustus being Gluttony was the basis -- pretty low-hanging fruit, I know. But that idea fell apart rather quickly considering there simply weren't enough characters to map the sins onto.
However, that train of thought brought me to a far more accurate reading of the story (if I do say so myself): each child represents one thing that adults will accuse modern children of.
They eat too much candy, they're too spoiled, they watch too much tv, etc... The Tim Burton version modernizes the children's "vices." Candy is replaced with more generalized junk food, watching tv becomes playing video games, and so on.
If another movie was made today, there would probably be a kid that spends too much time on tiktok and Augustus would have to have some new toxic traits because being fat isn't considered a moral failing anymore.
Point is, Charlie is the only one who exhibits diligence, obedience, and respectfulness, and he's rewarded for his good behavior.
It's a fairy tale where naughty children are punished and good children are rewarded.
tbh Veruca would probably be the one with the tiktok addiction, and would probably want to follow trashy trends about flexing expensive brands and what not. And Mike would probably be the "gore videos are dope!" kind of child.
@@jefesusmuel8392gore videos ARE dope.
@@bmprimer7809 No
@@cuckoobrain7999 yes
I think it's more about the failures of each parent, because each kid has been shaped by their teachings, contrasted with the good relatives and life lessons charlie had
In an interview, actor who played Agustus Gloop in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory clarified that the chocolate river was in fact, water. Dirty water that sat for weeks that people would throw their leftover coffee in. That's why it smelled.
Yeah, it didn't look like chocolate at all. It just looked like water. I doubt that anyone would even buy so much chocolate just for one set with many takes upon many takes. Real chocolate would also stick to the actor and it would be hard to get him out and he could potentially die
They didn’t melt millions and millions of chocolate bars. Well dang the movie is trash I guess
@@drewidlifestyle7883 well said! never gonna watch it again
@@drewidlifestyle7883 The issue is that the water was incredibly dirty and filled with coffee and germs. "They couldn't actually get a real glass elevator, so kidnapping and enslaving 1,000 animators to painstakingly edit it into the movie along with the cast inside is totally fine" is the logic you're effectively spouting.
It did have chocolate in it, it wasn't entirely chocolate though. It also had cream (the thing that went bad) and water. Idk the proportions but I would guess that it was mainly water.
“Everything in this room is edible, even me. But that is called cannibalism, my dear children. And it is frowned upon in most societies.”
"This movie sucks, the original movie was better"
Me: MUMLER!...
Seriously, I cannot understand a word you're saying
At least Roald Dahl didn't see the Tom and Jerry Version of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
even that included more slugworth to make the sub plot work.
@@tomsautocadstudio6446I just wish they didn’t have him repeat Veruca’s song.
Did you know that the part about "Slugworth" actually being a worker of Wonka and the whole thing being a test was made up during shoots? It wasn't in the original script; they just made that shit up when shooting the ending scenes, and the director/screenwriter actually had no idea what Slugworth's motivations were even supposed to be.
Explains a lot, really.
Also explains why Roald Dahl hated the movie.
Wow, they literally forgot what he was supposed to be
I mean he's a fake Slugworth so he's more of an addition than a retcon, and this is coming from someone who prefers the 2005 version @@thecoolbroscoolman4672
bBuT tHe oLd OnE Is A (screw this cap and nocap swap) cult classic and had actual effort!
-boomer
@@luis-sophus-8227 Well, again, keep in mind that the production cost was only $2 million dollars, compared to Tim Burton's $20 million dollar budget. For making a film only below $5.0 million dollars, you can only shoot so much and have to keep everything in there due to budget constraints. But even then scripts were rewritten right and left, and almost ended up in disastrous results that the crew had to step in and say to Roahl that they have to make the film their way or the highway. And shooting in the 1971 film only took 5 to 8 months. And yes, some of the effects didn't age well, even Denise Nickerson had a blue face the day after she left the set so the skin color change didn't go away from her face for a good week, and Mike Teevee smashing the freakin' chewing gum meal machine to have everyone stung, so yeah, the original was shitty but they made up for it with the limited budget they have. The 2005 one was possible because of a larger budget and was able to afford much more graphics and SFX compared to the original. They even tried the technique used int he 1971 version of using an air pump on Violet, but the director noticed it would take too long to do so, so they CGI it instead of doing it in real time. So some things in the Charlie film were real, while others were done on a computer to save time, money, and resources (Which the 1971 film would have loved to use had computers been invented before the film was in production. Unfortunately that was not the case since computer didn't come out until the first star wars movie/1980s and 1990s that CGI came around to be used as another filmmaking tool.) Then again I ama sucker for practical effects, hence why the 1971 version had everything all real and no CGI in it, whereas the 2005 one you can clearly tell how the shot and film was made.
There's a lot of things in both the 2005 and the 1971 film that have pros and cons, it just depends on which film you like the most, or if you're like me you end up liking both in the long run and go from there.
Despite growing up with the Willy Wonka version, I much prefer the Charlie one more. The Charlie version has better musical numbers, characters, and a much more satisfying ending, and its so nice seeing it get the acknowledgement it deserves.
The first one has a certain kind of magic for me, but I was obsessed with Johnny Depp's portrayal when I was younger
Both have their own legs to stand on imo
Classic doesnt mean better! Ya hear that, Doug Walker? Just sayin...
Imagine thinking the music in the 2005 remake is better lol… Pure Imagination, Candy Man, Oompa Loompa… all classics
@@BigSplenda1885 Imagine think the older Oompa Loompa songs are better. Pure Imagination and I've got a Golden Ticket are great, I'll give them that, but the old Oompa Loompa songs suck, generic, unfaithful, copy-paste. Just like the video says, classic doesn't mean better. The new one put more love, energy and thought into them, including the genres. Just another anti-2005 cultist worshipping the first movie
I cannot understand people who are against the 2005 version. When I first watched it, I already had read excerpts of the original book (I hadn't access to the book though), it really bothered me that the old movie didn't follow the story accurately. When I watched the 2005 version, I was really happy when I saw everything going correctly according to what I have read from the book, and, since then, I always had seen it as the superior version. It's strange that so many people think otherwise.
Usually people who rail on the 2005 version don't know anything about the book or simply don't care for/about it - feeling good/conventional 'family friendliness'/nostalgia trumps accuracy to the source material for a lot of people, especially when being accurate means being as absurd and dark as Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
I not a big fan of this movie because while it's on paper closer to the original (story wise) it don't really get the spirit I imaginated the factory has colorful on apparence but actually totally dangerous and crazy just like it's creator Willy Wonka, in Burton's adaptation Wonka is not creepy and he even get an arc where he is the nice hero (his father is the one to blame for their relationship) while in the old movie I think that Wonka is like in the book , strange, colorful but actually dangerous. I may be biased against the most recent movie since the two movies are product of their time and I'm more used to movies made in the 2000s than those made in the 70s
@@eleonorepb4565 100% bias, you must've watched the movie with your eyes closed if you don't consider Depp's Wonka dangerous
It’s nice that Dahl’s estate was working to keep his works alive and also put out a product in line with his vision. Usually families just see dollar signs and sign off on whatever
Yea they definitely didn’t make the movie to make money for themselves after he dropped dead. And they definitely didn’t say he’d love it because it made them a fat profit
@conormurphy4328 Nice tinfoil hat, if that was true do you really think it would be this faithful to the book.
@@Minecraftlover73 A. It’s not crazy to think a movie is made purely for profit as nearly every movie is made purely for profit. B. Making it that close to the source material means they didn’t need to waste time coming up with new or original ideas and could just replicate the book.
@@conormurphy4328 It's just nice that we got a product that landed in the middle and pleased all parties involved, the creators made profit while honoring Dahl's vision at the same time, and fans of that vision finally got a proper mainstream representation even if the general audiences reception was ultimately more mixed than the modestly received luke-warm original.
I guess it's just easier to admire such a decision in contrast to the modern entertainment industry, where products seem to be made exclusively for the vanity of producers and share-holders, and already established passion driven IP's are devoured and defiled by talentless hacks with big money and "degrees" for no reason beyond barely disguised spite.
@@conormurphy4328you've mentioned RLM, opinion invalidated
Wait, people LEGIT thought Charlie was supposed to be a remake of the FIRST MOVIE, not the BOOK???? Bro...that explains SO MUCH. I can't believe I thought haters kinda had a point back then when they actually had no fucking clue what they were talking about... Now I'm glad I was reading the book for school around the exact time Charlie came out, cause I ended up loving it.
Also, the Roald Dahl hate for the original...MAN, I knew he hated the Slugworth twist but yeesh, I can see why he just straight up did NOT have a good time with this movie
The Burton film didn’t come out until I was a teen but as I had read the book in elementary school - and not only that, but an older print which had the original Oompa Loompa’s - I appreciated and understood exactly what they were doing with this and maybe even liked it slightly more than the original (having Oingo Boingo write the Oompa Loompa songs edges it up for me). It was more accurate to the book but at the same time had its own creative touches.
Even as a fan of Burton's movie, I thought it was a remake of Willy Wonka. I had NO idea it was based on a book.
Roald Dahl writes books where adults are awful people whose trust should be earned and not given, and the original made too many of the adults too sympathetic.
i always grew up thinking it was a remake because the people around me called it a remake, also didnt know that Charlie went by a different name, i always thought it was 2 different movies with the same name
That's how I remember people talking about it.
I remember reading Dahl's book as a kid, then watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and loving it for how much it stuck to the story. From then on, I stuck with the mindset that Tim Burton's version was the better of the two. And to learn now that Dahl hated Willy Wonka and would have been proud of Charlie just solidifies that belief.
Just cuz he hated wonka doesnt mean he would like charlie
@@karlkoskie2891Dahl's widow said that Dahl would have liked it.
@@karlkoskie2891 Someone who knew Dahl personally (his widow) said he would have. I'm more inclined to take the word of someone who knew him over someone who didn't
@@karlkoskie2891I mean his widow was the one who said he would have preferred the Burton version and I feel like she would have known what he would have liked since she was you know married to him.
@morganyoung3557 she was also paid millions of dollars for the rights to the movie, and probably for an official endorsement. Her opinion is biased towards the movie, and it still doesn't matter because it's still not HIS opinion.
In my opinion, the flashbacks are the best part of the movie.
Christopher Lee saying " *Lollypops* " will never not be funny😂
Glad to see there are some people out there that have a fondness for the Tim Burton adaptation. This film has been getting so much unfair backlash.
I've only ever seen that version
And i still don't get why.
The only backlash was really trying to add Willy Wonkas story that probably didn’t need to be there
its because the second movie isn’t as marketable
Same!! Maybe I’m biased by nostalgia as this version was the one I saw first and grew up with, but I feel the changes they made really fit the bill more than the og (specifically the kids)
That and I enjoy Depp’s portrayal of Wonka Madness tm with how it’s more like an evil corporation who has a facade of being whimsical, though I absolutely do still love the Wilder portrayal too
Both are good!! Quit shitting on this one bc it’s different!!
Mike in the Charlie version seems like a kid who'll grow up to be violent and dangerous if left unchecked.
You have to see the West End musical. He's wild,dangerous,violent and a potential murderer
Feels like his introduction is a reference to Columbine with him playing a violent video game and being in the Denver area.
To me, Mike just looks like he will be addicted to Monster energy drink.
mike in 1971 is cute
I liked the actor he was funny. All the kids in Charlie were so much better than the kids in Wonka.
I’m going to be playing both Ms. Teavee and Mrs. Bucket in my community production of the Willy Wonka musical. It’s my first semi lead roles ever. And I’m so excited to be playing them and are definitely portraying them as polar opposites of each other. Ms. Teavee being mildly annoying and Mrs. Bucket being more soft spoken.
Good luck!
How did it go?
The only song I appreciate from the older version is Pure Imagination, or whatever it's called. That actually helps me justify my refusal to live in the real world.
Can I join you in your refusal?
Honestly, CatCF has a lot more going for it than just "being accurate to the book" like some of the commenters here are saying. The performances and characters are fantastic, the sets and music are great, and the weirder, darker tone that the movie commits itself to really lends itself to both the styles of Dahl and Burton.
He says that in the video too
That's true. I'm just trying to give my two cents on it as well.
I love how Depp plays Wonka. Sometimes in movies, you see an actor and you immediately think it's an actor. Like seeing Daniel Radcliffe in The Woman in Black and thinking "Oh, that's Harry Potter!". You don't get that in this movie. You don't see Wonka and think "Ah, Jack Sparrow!". I think that adds so much to the film because it allows you to believe that Wonka is a real person, not an actor playing a role.
@@eleanorcooke7136i never thought wonka was a high speed gunslinger in the original or even as the Young Frankenstein
being book accurate makes it significantly worst.
There is one tiny detail in the original that I preferred, when Augustus falls into the chocolate river, Charlie holds out a giant lollipop and tries to save Augustus. None of the other characters even try to help so it showed Charlie as the one good kid.
I also once heard that originally there were meant to be 8 ticket winners, not 5, not sure if that’s true but if it is, I have had a theory that the original 7 bad kids would have represented the 7 deadly sins. Augustus is Gluttony, Violet is Pride, Veruca is Greed, Mike is Wrath, with the other kids representing the rest
The extra kids thing is true. Look up the Spotty Powder chapter.
Interesting theory! Not sure how they would've done the Lust kid though 🤔 Maybe you can have a lust for candy, but Greed and Gluttony would already cover those
Charlie's the lust because he has extreme desire for chocolate
remember that lust isn't limited to sexual desires@@pringlebatch
@@pringlebatchprobably a "lust" for wonka, like wanting to become the next wonka so much that it tries too hard and fails or something
@@pringlebatchBest idea I could come up is that the parent actually represents lust by being very flirty with Mr Wonka
The thing about Slugworth was that not a single person watching the news, saw this random ass man pulling children close and whispering in their ears and said "woah, that's weird, who is that guy? Wait, wasn't he JUST in Germany? How is he in America now?"
As someone who grew up on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this brings a smile to my face.
Grew up on 2005 CATCF gang!! 😁
I actually grew up with both movies (saw the Wonka version first). I used to prefer the '71 movie SOLELY because I found the '05 movie too scary as a kid. But nowadays, when I'm no longer a scaredy cat, I realise I far prefer the '05 movie
@@ashhabimran239
I've never seen the 71 movie, I've heard alot of good things though. I like the 05 one though.
I love how Charlie and the Chocolate Factory's portrayal of Mike TV is him ironically being a genius. Here me out here. He's portrayed as idiot due to being a pessimistic brat who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. If it weren't for those qualities, he'd show that he's actually rather brilliant minded. Think about it. The kid calculated where his golden ticket would be (which he briefly mentions in his first scene), and he did it just because he could. He has potential, and know that he does, but limit himself to what media tells him. Basically he's a boy genius who stifles his brilliance with what he learns from media alone, his pessimistic outlook, and his own arrogance of his capabilities over others.
In the [noncanonical] video game adaptation, Mike is the one who causes the problems in many of the levels by doing things like rewiring machinery and subtle things that require intelligence or skill
I never saw him portrayed as an idiot? Just an overconfident jerk Sheldon but less nerdy
Hes Jimmy Neutron but slightly worse
I really liked Charlie turning down the factory, to be honest. Up until then, the movie had been faithfull to the book, so suddenly seeing a departure that severe shocked me. But it's not just that. It makes more sense given the characters of the people involved. Charlie is a family kid, so of course he isn't going to budge on this. Meanwhile, Wonka not allowing Charlie's family in fits with his own preconcieved notions about families.
At this point, Mike TV is gone. And I think Wonka has taken his place as sort of the villain of the movie. That becomes clear when he denies Charlie's request to have his family join them. Not just _that_ he does it, but _how_ he does it: matter-of-factly, as if it's not even worth discussing. It takes Charlie aback, and that's what results in him refusing. But it makes sense given where Wonka is comming from, and where he is in his head.
And what results from that is just perfect. Wonka just leaves, clearly baffled why anyone would turn down such an offer. But we get it. And we see that, even without Wonka, Charlie's family would have been okay. His dad gets a stable job back, Charlie takes on odd-jobs, clearly having been inspired by his time in the factory, even if he turned it down. And Wonka? He has a nervous breakdown, eventually leading him to the one place no one, not even he himself, would have expected him to go: outside. Fortunately for him, because it's what allows Charlie to guide him to work things out with his father.
For a movie that is so focussed on Wonka's past and his relationship with his father, it would have been weird if this didn't come to a head at some point. And it does, beautifully. You can't just praise the backstory and then say the resolution of that backstory is "weird". Either explain those feelings, or point out a way it could have been done better.
Yeah, I don't know why he took issue with that change. I don't want to believe it's as simple as "that plot point didn't happen in the original book, therefore it's automatically bad" as he seems to know that changes in adaptations are good when they make sense. Or, at least he PRETENDS to know that.
Adding onto this, this one change was actually approved by Felicity Dahl, Roald Dahl's wife and widow, and I think your reasoning is what Felicity might have thought that made her give the seal of approval to this one change.
@@jacobwansleebenHonestly it’s one of those changes that feels more like a natural extension of the source material rather than a downgrade
False
@@firestrikerii810 Can you elaborate a bit further?
I used to live near a candy store that played the first movie on loop and I can only imagine the workers there must lose their mind seeing it every single shift
Dude I totally agree, everyone always says "willy wonka and the chocolate factory is the best" and I just disagree, thank you for being a voice for our corner of the internet.
I’ll be honest, I thought Tim Burton’s Charlie had more personality than the 70s Charlie. You got to see more of Charlie’s creativity and how that actually helps him in running the factory later. He still has to grow up sooner but also keeps some naivety when his dad tries to keep him from knowing he got laid off. And it makes way more sense for him to reject the factory because of that, his family is everything to him because that’s all he’s ever really had, obviously he wouldn’t give them up just to work with some weird guy he’s only known for a day. The whole reason he went in the first place was because his family wanted him to be a kid for once and not worry about money
"It's my birthday present, and I can do whatever I want with it." Deserves to be as quotable as Pure Imagination. Charlie was such a generous angel during his birthday. 😇
I think it's weird and unrelatable how generous he is. Poor people don't act like that lol.
@@mrbanks456 ???!!! I guess people being generous and kind hearted despite their circumstances is to much for you, lmao
@@mrbanks456do you know poor children
@@disneyvillainsfan1666 It's surprisingly odd that I would end up being as that generous as I would to others whom also want to have a taste of the chocolate, not just me..Sometimes you have to put others in first before you do it yourself.
I cannot believe, that this video has convinced me to actually read the book.
I respect the hell out of that
Seriously it was one of the first things I ever read
Fun fact: Grandpa Joe did say on page 83 that Veruca did want a good kick in the pants. from the beginning of the page to when he says this (omitting a sentence that started on page 81 there was an illustration on page 82) :”Daddy, said Veruca Salt I want a boat like this! I want you to buy me a big pink boiled-sweet boat exactly like Mr Wonka’s! And I want lots of Oompa-Loompas to row me about, and I want a chocolate river and I want … I want …” She wants a good kick in the pants, whispered Grandpa Joe to Charlie. Despite this here in the video (15:09) he says it like it didn’t happen in the book
Yeah, I remember that scene in the book very well, and I say it was justified for Grandpa Joe to whisper that to Charlie. Veruca was acting super demanding and greedy.
Can we also note how David Kelly's portrayal looks EXACTLY like Quentin Blake's portrayal in the illustrations?! And lets give a round of applause to Deep Roy who ROCKED the huge task of portraying every.single. Oompa Loompa!
I have been saying this for years. People need to learn the difference between a remake and an adaptation.
Readaptation isn't really a term. Each consequent adaptation is its own interpretation.
That's what I meant to say@@skarloeythomas5172
@@skarloeythomas5172 exactly how I see books, movies, tv shows, entertainment, theme parks, etc. is that everyone has thie rown interpretation of how they see the Wonka franchise or that IP as they see fit. Because trying to be close to the source and restricting yourself to do so doesn't bring out the creativity and imaginative ideas you may have but have to be constrained to a formula that everyone's familiar with. In my opinion Everyone should have their own interpretation of how they see the Wonka books as and go from there. That's just me.
i like how there’s names like “veruca” and “augustus” and then there’s just “mike”
and “charlie.”
Don't forget Violet!
@@piretiris8223 it’s not a comment naming all the kids
@@cawsomeaolin yeah, but her name is still on the peculiar side
@@piretiris8223 that’s true but not goofy enough, i could see someone being called violet in real life
I'm an autistic 19 year old was raised on the Charlie film instead of the Willy Wonka film. In fact, I'm almost certain my divorced parents listed the 70s film as a film I couldn't watch and even then I only was able to see the Willy Wonka version through it just airing live on Boomerang. Otherwise, I've only actually seen it once or twice. I've always preferred the Charlie version, and my parents have as well.
I also grew up heavily on the Roald Dahl books. Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the BFG, The Magic Finger, Esio Trot, The Witches, even some of his autobiographies. I've read them.
Maybe it's me being autistic, but I just ended up disliking the Willy Wonka version because of how far it deviated from the book, how much it butchers its characters, something I hadn't seen with the Charlie version. Honestly, the Charlie film feels like it's just the book in movie form, and I love it for that.
Thank you for defending this film.
I’m an autistic 27yo who feels exactly the same. I hate the 70s version, loved Roald Dahl’s other books, and the 2005 adaptation speaks to me on multiple levels as an autistic. You aren’t alone ☺️
As an autistic 23 year old (will turn 24 in late February) who is ashamed to admit not to have read any of Roald Dahl's books, even I as someone who's not familiar with the original source material vastly prefer the Burton version. I never watched the Wilder version all the way through growing up. I stopped at the Augustus Gloop scene shortly before the first Oompa Loompa number (which is why when I saw Wonka in theaters, I didn't know that the Oompa Loompa Song that Hugh Grant sang wasn't original to that movie 😅) out of boredom and dissatisfaction. I did, however, watch the Burton film multiple times growing up. I swear to God, the only reason why the Wilder film is more beloved is childhood nostalgia. This is the one "cult classic" that doesn't deserve to be a cult classic, and I am appalled that the public holds it in higher regards than the Burton movie. I do not need to read the original book to know this 😡
@@ryankramer8779 Absolutely read the book or find a copy of it online
It'll be worth a read
I've read a lot of Roald Dahl's books in Middle School and they have such a quirky and abnormal style and tone. Something the '71 movie sadly neglected.
Imagine if Tim Burton made this movie as a stop motion film
Nightmare and the Chocolate Corpse.
Well, hopefully Henry Selick will get the credit if Burton hires him to direct it.
Jack and The Christmas Factory
This is Wonkaween! This is Wonkaween!
THANK you for mentioning Coraline in good book adaptations. Its so well adapted. Fun fact, the first draft of the script was SO loyal, SO faithful to the book, that Neil Gaiman ENCOURAGED changes so it wouldnt be so 1-to-1 with the book. That says something.
Although, the basement scene wouldve been cool as hell on screen, as well as the Other Mother's hair floating around her head like its underwater, but i understand thatd be difficult to animate in stop motion. And there are some little moments that are called into question without the book's lore. Such as the little ghost boy using "thou" and "art" and "t'aint" (the book takes place in Britain, not Oregon, so there it makes a bit more sense for him to be speaking that way)
I was in a film studies class, and we had to present a pilot show we made. At one point my group butchered to decribe the characters I made... Honestly it was extremely painful.
I can not fathom how the author of the book felt seeing everything changed.
For me, I have always and still do LIKE Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory more than Charlie. But I always recognized that Charlie was a purer adaptation of the original book and I did still absolutely love it for that. My own preference I 100% acknowledge as first exposure bias.
I honestly understood MUCH better why Dahl disliked 1971 movie after watching this video. They abandoned his style and atmosphere, turned Grandpa Joe from wise and nice grandpa into a jerk (and character that has a whole hate subreddit), turned Mike, the awful, rude brat obsessed with TELEVISION, something Roald Dahl didn't like very much, into probably the best kid out of winners. I still like this movie but I agree that 2005 version is purer adaptation and I honestly think Dahl would've like it.
@@Ad-fu6tj Glad to see someone else agrees. I think it's important to be able to recognize the faults in the media you enjoy, and boy howdy does this video excellently point out just how flawed Willie Wonka and amd the Chocolate Factory in compared to the true vision of the original. Still totally fine to enjoy it, but I think knowledge can broaden the appreciation even when it's negatives.
@@Animus_Altia I'm glad too, still a fan of WWatCF but it was really refreshing to hear someone praising the newer movie and giving it respect it deserves after all this hate it got because "it was a terrible remake of a classic masterpiece"
and thus BeCaUsEs ItS FiRsT ItS BeTtER
15:08 While true that Grandpa Joe wouldn't be the type to say that Veruca needs a kick in the pants, he does actually say it in the book as they get on the boat.
" 'And I want lots of Oompa-Loompas to row me about, and I want a chocolate river and I want… I want...' " (Veruca said this, but I think anyone could tell.)
" 'She wants a good kick in the pants,' " whispered Grandpa Joe to Charlie."
I agree with your point that Grandpa Joe wouldn't be the type to say this, but he does do it in the book, which definitely explains why he did it in the 1971 movie.
To be fair, it wasn't very pleasant to hear Veruca saying, "I want this, and I want that!" While sitting behind her on the boat.
@@disneyvillainsfan1666 is it pleasant to hear Veruca say what she wants anywhere?
I agree wholeheartedly with this review. I'm sick and tired of people shunning Tim Burton's version just because it's not like the original classic. They're two different entities, people. I mean, thats like hating on The Dark Knight just because it's different to Batman 89 (ironically also directed by Burton).
Plus, you want to talk about a cheap remake that completely misses the point of the original? _Tom and Jerry and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,_ nuff said. :P
So many uses of “and” in that logo. What’s even more disrespectful about that is that while in the original film, Wonka was upset about Charlie getting away unscathed while the Ceiling Fan has to be sterilized; the Tom and Jerry “DEmake” (and yes, I’m calling it a demake, because there’s more detrimental changes than beneficial) had the Cat and Mouse contaminate the entire factory.
bottom line, some people and focus groups are just dunces (i would say the real words but i don't want this comment to be deleted)
@@terrancebloxlore3209 A-holes? Dumb-butts? Inconsiderate Jerks?
@@robbiewalker2831 actual swear words but yea, those type of words
@@terrancebloxlore3209 I don’t blame you for being unable to cuss. SJWs are taking over everything.
Charlie in Willy Wonka movie was a whiny child MUCH LIKE VERUCA.
Charlie in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a pure kindhearted realist who still had the sense of wonder and awe that every child has in a chocolate factory like this.
*ALSO THE CHOCOLATE WAS REAL. TIM BURTON SAID SO*
Charlie in the origanal was not spoiled at all yeah he hade his moments but he isn't spoiled at all and him being a bit winny and spoiled at times makes him more human the newer Charlie is just a goodie goodie
@@randompersonontheinternet2024 Charlie in the Burton film is a little closer to the books and stage play, where he was a pretty "perfect" well-behaved child.
@BrightWulph ok but I'm saying the original Charlie isn't spoiled
THE CHOCOLATEEE!!!!!! THE CHOCILATE IS REAAAAAAAL!!!!!!
@@randompersonontheinternet2024that's great and all but they never said Charlie was spoiled. They said he was whiny like Veruca so you're kinda arguing a point never even mentioned😭
I feel like the fizzy lifting drinks scene ironically exemplifies the entire issue with the older adaptation. Directly disregard the wishes of the property owner for selfish gain? Sounds a little familiar.
I've been stuck at home with an eye injury so I listened to the book on audio only and came to the realization that the tim Burton film is a complete almost replica of the book. I e always liked this version better than the gene wilder one anyways, but I'm glad that people are finally giving it a better rep. It was hated on, but it's a masterpiece
1 detail I appreciated a lot more when I got older was how Willy Wonka wore dark bug-eyed sunglasses whenever he was outside his factory. It was a great way to show how shunned and isolated he felt from the world.
The fact that it uses the actual songs from the book instead of making up their own alone makes it the superior version.
The music sucks hard though. I wish Danny had made them differently. The lyrics matter but the tune has to actually be pleasant to listen to.
@@LikaLaruku nah
@@LikaLarukuthe songs slap wth are you talking about lmao
@@LikaLarukuThe song when Veruca gets thrown down the chute by the squirrels goes hard
Yes, but are the book songs as catchy and memorable as the 70s one?
You may be the ONLY person in existence that likes "Cheer Up, Charlie". Ya know, literally the only song in the 1971 version that people skip!?
😂😂😂
There is a very simple reason why many people prefer the earlier adaptation over the newer one-innocence. Films from that era convey a sense of innocence that has long been lost in cinematography, and little has been done to attempt to tell those universal, simplistic yet timeless stories as of late. The grittiness of the 70s produced arguably some of the best films ever made, but it was the death of innocence in cinema.
Glad to see some positivity for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I love both films and it was sad how hated this one had been. The thing that always stuck with the most was Violet, and her reaction to the results of her mishaps in the factory. The Violet who went into the factory was not really a happy kid. She was driven, yes, but she was basically her mother's show dog. She had to do everything for her mother's approval and be just like her. The Violet who left was gleefully playing with her new flexibility and brushing off her mother's bitter remarks. The way she had permanently changed color forcibly divorced her from her mother's image, much to her mother's dismay. Violet learned a lesson, sure, but if anyone was punished by the experience it was her mother. Much the same can be said for the rest of the bratty kids and their parents, but Violet always stuck out to me and I felt so happy for the kid at the end of the film.
I never considered that! Now I feel happy for Violet breaking out on her own too. 😊
Generally speaking, the story pretty much IS playing with themes of nature vs. nurture.The reason why those kids are so foul is primarily because they have awful parents. Augustus's parents never put their foot down and just let him consume way more than he should. Violet's mother lives vicariously through her, resulting in her daughter being an arrogant little brat. Veruca grows up a selfish and entitled brat because her rich parents give her everything she could ever ask for. And Mike's father is a pushover who never properly spends time with his son, leaving him to become a jaded kid heavily influenced by media.
Charlie, on the other hand, is a sweet kid who has grown up humble, never wanting for affection and love because his family had plenty of it to go around. And so the choice to have him reject Wonka's offer because he loves his family too much to give them up is, in my opinion, a fantastic change.
Hell, this is actually one of the things I actually *like* about the new subplot of Wonka and his father. His father, a dentist, pretty much never lets him eat sweets. He pours gasoline on Willy's dreams, telling him candy is a waste of time. On the flip side, you can see that this is a father who simply is overprotective of his son. As a dentist, he knows how a candy addiction can rot his son's teeth - and dentistry problems can get *serious.* As in, dental infections actually have a low chance to kill you. This culminates in Wonka's own emotional resonance where he reunites with his father and finds that said horrible father... *was incredibly proud of him.* Keeping clippings of all of his son's successes across decades. He literally recognizes his son by his teeth, showing just how much Willy stayed in his mind.
@@ApexGaleAnd that is why I love the changes to the story. I swear, it made me so happy to see Wilbur in pure joy in seeing his son again.
After years of thinking about it, I think Mrs. Beauregarde was the worst parent in the 2005 movie. The other parents at least allowed their kids to be kids, but she always kept a strict gaze at her daughter and forced her to be competitive and win everything. Violet wasn't allowed to live her own life, only what her mom wanted.
It wasn’t hated
honestly I think the biggest player in the dislike on this movie is the Nostalgia Critic, who didn't read the original book and basically judged the Burton version on the basis of the original. Which would be like adapting the story of the twelve labors of Heracles and saying it doesn't represent the Disney version well, it's stupid
Also no disrespect to the dead but Gene Wilder saying how much he doesn't like "that CGI mess" is just a giant slap in the face. Like he's one to talk, to be honest
Especially considering that there was very little CGI in the film.
Yeah, I really like Nostalgia Critic's videos, but I always disliked his Chicolate Factories video.
I disagreed with everything he said there.
the OG was a CGI mess mixed with school play props lol
Huh? What CGI? There was no CGI in the original buddy.
@@doblaje_a_la_medidaShitting on the Tom and Jerry version was thoroughly justified tbh
You're absolutely right, Ive always felt Burton's version was a better overall film, especially the music and the in-film acknowledgement that Wonka purposely set all those kids up to learn a lesson.
I do, however, like the ending addition with Wonka having a family now and Charlie as a partner to share in their future candy escapades. That whole 'Boys, no business talk at the table' line is something I think Dahl would have especially liked.
I've always chalked the fact that it was better to the fact that it had a talented director known for his quirkiness, paired with a star who had the hollywood clout to play the character the way he thought it should be played, all with the goal of accurately representing and even adding to Dahl's many subtle themes and innuendos.
Veruca is the worst kid, she doesn't bother to find the ticket herself. Mike may also be a brat, but even he found his ticket and yet he hates chocolate
I must say, seeing this review has made me feel bad for overlooking the Charlie version. Though I really enjoyed Roald Dahl's book, had you asked me which was the superior of the two adaptations before I saw this video, I would have definitely said Willy Wonka. However, your video has caused me to see the many positive aspects of the Charlie version I overlooked and made me realize many of the flaws present in Willy Wonka that I never really picked up. Willy Wonka was made as a cash grab, while Charlie was a legitimate effort to do Roald Dahl's book justice, and I think that alone makes it the superior of the two. You are also right in pointing out that most of the characters in Charlie are much more developed and fleshed out, as well as closer to their book counterparts, whereas the characters in Willy Wonka are mostly stereotypes. I definitely plan to give Charlie a rewatch now that I've seen this review.
You should. Despite what he said about the whole “I have no son” subplot, I thought it was a great addition to make Charlie more relatable and make Wonka come off as an extreme introvert. Honestly, if Wonka was to believe that all parents are as mean and cruel as his own, his previous workers were spies and traitors, and that he was looking for, in his own words, the “least rotten” child, *and knew* the first four winners don’t deserve the factory, then I can understand what they’re going for in the adaptation.
@@robbiewalker2831 I love Charlie turning down the factory. I think that if he didn't, it would be so strange to his character and the same for Wonka if he didn't stipulate that. Wonka was alone for a long time with his memories. His time alone would've soured his bad memories even more and you can just see the disgust when it comes to parents. He truly doesn't believe that family can help, in fact he thinks it will harm.
I can't express enough how happy I am to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory being given so much love these past few years. So many people are looking back and finally realizing just how great it was and still is.
Lol for years it really felt like I was crazy for liking this version more so I’m glad to finally see some other people defending it as well
The kids who had the Charlie version as the one they grew up with are finally adults, so we get to voice our opinion now lmao
@@heyitsmira17I've said many many times, if the Charlie version had come first, everybody would have preferred that, and they would have called the Willy Wonka version a "saccharine, watered-down, lighthearted version."
Me, being born in the 2000s, I can say the reason people like Willy Wonka is the same reason I like Charlie.
I grew up with it, and it is a cozy movie. I don’t even need an argument for why it’s better than Willy Wonka.
I’d say that Danny DeVito’s take on Rolad Dahl’s book Matilda was honestly a very faithful adaptation of the source material.
I've never seen the Willy Wonka version, but I remember absolutely loving the Charlie version. It was a childhood defining movie for me
Same here. To he fair, the tv channel here never replayed the older version
@@L16htW4rr10rDude, it's on all the time on Hulu. Don't know if you have that or not, but I do find that and the reworked version on Hulu very often.
I have to say, but the ending of the original in some ways is not accurate, and as a writer I understand Dahl's anger toward the films ending, as it is not supposed to be accepted by Charlie, he is supposed to realize he doesn't need that big factory if he can't have his family around him. It is a very positive and strong message for kids to chase their dreams and reach for the stars, but not if it means sacrificing yourself or parts of you for your goals and dreams.
same
My son read the book in school and wanted to watch the movies afterwards. He watched the original with his grandparents and then the new one with me. He liked Tim Burton’s version miles more than the old one.
lol i was the opposite i saw the 2005 version first and liked the older one better after i saw it. don't really rember why that was years ago a this point but. my opinion still stands. but i do not by any means thing the new one is bad.
i watched charlie about 40 times. i read the book and it was like watching the movie again, but seemed much shorter in length. i watched wonka 1 time and deleted file immediately. there was nothing to like and horror scenes were not impressive enough to be worth that disk space. an everpresent conclusion that wonka is better has been buffling me for long time. i thought i'm the odd one, but i see now i'm not
Ranma (well, tsubasa) profile picture, based???
I watch both regularly, read the books too. As a kid I was greatly fascinated by the whole story, still sorta am. I think the '05 movie is more flashy (not a bad thing) which might make it appeal more to children. Though personally I remember fixating more on how the '71 movie frightened me (I was 4 when first watching it). I remember my dad struggling not to laugh when I asked him, crying from fear, if oompa loompas were real. Didn't watch the '05 version until I was 7, which helped.
Also ranma profile pic is rad as fuck.
You'd be hard-pressed to find any kid that would prefer something that looks old and visually dated compared to something that looks new and bright, plot and character differences aside. I'm sure you think your kid's smart and different like every parent, but kids are very easily impressed, especially if you put them in front of a screen. Some of the popular trash on UA-cam Kids is testament to that.
I love both movies.
At first I thought the Charlie one was a remake until I saw it & found the book.
The Wonka one will always have a place in my heart. It's behind the scenes backstory won't stop me from loving it.
As with many movies, it will have those happy, cozy moments with my family.
I
Growing up with my dad reading the book to me and listening to the audiobook on road trips, when I first the Willy Wonka movie it just felt empty of all the magic the book had.
Also fun fact, the square candy that look round was weirdly not in the audiobook I listened to.
That's what they call an "abridged version"
i always preferred Wonka being a sickly pale weirdo with no social skills to Gene Wilder’s rendition, and you have NO idea how cathartic it is to finally hear someone else say it, omg
great video! well spoken, you provided solid counter-examples, and you’re very respectful and fair to what you critique :)
To be honest, I'd hate to say it but, The Johnny Depp Wonka I often find him to be a strange fella that yes, has social issues, but I would be more of an acquaintance to that person rather than a friend of mine. Gene Wilder on the other hand, absolute madman of an actor and really knows how to put on a show. I would end up being best friends with him and both him and I would feel the same way towards Tim Burton's adaptation and such, but oh well.
Kinda warmed my heart when you said "wearing their love for this film like a badge of honour" because I absolutely feel that way. I love the Charlie version with a big chunk of my heart.
I’m so glad I can finally open up and say I love the Charlie adaptation!! I couldn’t be able to say I love it in Film School because of how heavily praised the Wonka version was. Even though I like the Wonka film.
Off-topic, but I’m so happy you added WarioWorld music in. The music in that game is phenomenal!!!
"So, does Oompa Loompa mean something OTHER than their names? Because I wouldn't start a song with, 'Hu-man be-ing, human being!'" -Mike Nelson
I love both movies, and as someone that's actually read the book too, I greatly appreciate Burton's film for being obviously way closer to the source material.
Side note: somewhat surprised you didn't use the same reason you gave for Elfman being part of a Burton film for Johnny Depp. Burton and Depp are frequently paired together; enough so, that it's shocking when one does something without the other.
Last night I watched an old Burton movie. Depp was not in it, but Elfman did the music. Admittedly it had a pretty threatening score, but as it involved a lot of death and trying to scare people, that was probably the right choice. There's a reason it won an Academy Award for makeup.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory traumatized me as a kid, to the point where I couldn't even hear references to it for several years without panicking, and that's why it'll always be my favorite of the two.
While both films are fun in their own ways, Willy Wonka is more quirky and light-hearted, whereas Charlie is psychological warfare. The color grading, the soundtrack, the acting, the set design, the choreography, the camera work, the writing, everything works together to create this constant underlying sense of dread. Even before we enter the chocolate factory. Scenes and lines linger, both the unnerving ones and the funny ones, and you're left in this state of uncertainty because "what the fuck was that about??"
Again, both films are good. They're both for different audiences and have different aims and intentions. However, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory willl always be superioir to me because of how masterfully it crafted its unsuspecting horror.
6:04 "Wonka was made to be a cashgrab that angered it's creator"
I know this video was uploaded 4 years ago but something tells me this guy secretly knew about the new "wonka" movie as well