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!
”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.”
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.
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.
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.
@@Shoxic666 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
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.”
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
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.
@@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
@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.
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
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
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".
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.
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
First of all, THANK YOU. I have been trying to argue this for YEARS. So here's the thing - I was a little kid in the 90s, and I was one of those "read anything and everything I can get my hands on" kids. My list of nostalgia books would be several pages long. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the book, was one of the staples of my childhood, as I was an avid Dahl reader (or, y'know, a reader of the Dahl work that was child-appropriate). My favorite genre was (and is) fantasy, especially fantasy that goes outside the LOTR formula of elves and dragons in a D&D world to do some WEIRD things. I categorize C&tCF as that brand of fantasy that is obviously about magical and supernatural elements, but takes it in a framework that most might not recognize as traditional fantasy. And I LOVED that. It was bizarre. It was DIFFERENT. And it was colorful - my mental images of the factory as this wonderland of weirdness were so strong. I did also read Great Glass Elevator, and agree with you that it's not as good - its two acts are disjointed (one is about space travel and the other is about "oops we took too much fountain-of-youth serum and now one of us literally died from de-aging") and the Vermicious Knid section kind of takes it a bit further from charismatic-yet-dark into just straight-up horror. Which I don't mind in children's books in general, but tonally, it was jarring for THIS duology. Anyway, when I was that small kid, Gene Wilder's version of the movie was all we had, basically, so I tried to watch it in order to get more content of that world I loved...and was so disappointed because it changed so much. It didn't feel like the world of the book in the slightest. I don't need to tell you why; it's all outlined here. Long before Burton EVER put out his version, I was disappointed with what the other one had to offer me, and it was literally the only option. Then Burton made his. It got a lot of detractors, and I think one thing that's worth noting is that it wasn't *just* about the Wilder version being everyone's favorite but also because at the time, we as a pop culture society had a bit of Tim Burton fatigue. He had this really productive streak around that time where he was churning out movie after movie, but people were starting to draw connections between him casting the same actors (Depp, Bonham Carter, and before them Keaton), hiring the same composer (Elfman), using the same art and costuming styles (or the lanky animation found in TNBC/Corpse Bride), and basically building a particular aesthetic brand in all his films. Either you loved it or you hated it, and a lot of people were just ready for variety and hated it out of that alone. I personally really loved the Burton aesthetic for a long time - I'm kinda easy to please as long as a film is visually stunning, and even though Burton's style is instantly recognizable, it is so because it's always OVER THE TOP and I love that. And the only reason I say "loved" in the past tense is just because it went from one of my favorite movie styles to being a drop in a much larger pool of film style I like now. But a lot of people were just "Oh he just went for Depp and Elfman again and it's another movie about something that's creepy and goth but not evil" and wrote it off simply because they wanted something new. Which is the way of film critics; all trends eventually garner criticism simply for being trends, and that's not good or bad intrinsically. The point is that I never saw Burton's version in theaters because even back then, everyone was panning it, and the criticisms I heard in real time weren't even about the Willy Wonka film, they were about "Oh Tim is back doing THIS again, we're all sick of it" But then I caught it on a TV rerun and I was BLOWN AWAY because I could tell IMMEDIATELY that this was more faithful to the world I had known through the book. When little things happened like the cutaway to the prince who commissioned a chocolate palace, I was like "NO ONE EVER REMEMBERS THAT PART! THAT'S ATTENTION TO DETAIL!". Now, I was in fact a little miffed by the dad flashbacks with Wonka, especially because they took away some of Wonka's mystery (I always liked thinking that perhaps the reason his life and world were so bizarre was because he maybe wasn't quite human), buuuuuut in the end, I let that go because I was a super fan of Christopher Lee and his amazing baritone. And nowadays, having gained more real-world experience, I gotta say that the way you describe Wonka's interests, lack of social skill, and strained relationship with his parents SCREAMS neurodivergent/autistic. I'm not sure if that was Burton's intent, but the film really took the prompt of "give Willy Wonka a backstory" and made it something incredibly relatable to a lot of us who were growing up realizing our brains were a wee bit different and people were laughing at us for it. So yeah, I'm okay sacrificing Wonka being a potential supernatural entity if it means he can actually be a metaphor for something that needs to be pointed out. Anyway, I'm a big villain fan, but not the normal kind, and from the very start, I agreed with you on everything Slugworth. From "This guy wasn't in the book" to "Where'd that subplot go?" to "Does...this mean...there never was a Slugworth...?". You know who my absolute favorite characters are? The four kids who failed the tour. Augustus, Violet, Veruca, and Mike. I am FASCINATED by them because they all are such little gremlins. It's like...we've all known kids who were annoying in those exact ways, and you wanna feel bad for them because they are just kids, but at the same time, you KNOW that if they don't learn some lessons soon, they're going to grow into obnoxious, entitled, and downright evil adults. Making them so "oh they're just innocent kids with flaws" in the first film was probably why so many people decided to interpret Willy Wonka as this secretly edgy horror character, because the kids aren't getting what they deserve. The Burton film is very clear that these kids ruined their own fates by not listening to the rules laid out and doing things that were downright dangerous to themselves and others for no other reason than that they wanted to serve themselves. All they can think about is what they want RIGHT NOW, and so they'll run over everyone and everything else to get there. That makes them FUN and so much cooler characters to think about than kinda being generically nice kids. And it gets one thinking about the vicious cycles of parenting that brought them to life - how their parents were all probably mean kids too, and those parents before them, and these four will probably one day have mean kids of their own, and man, how much of society's evils come from kids being taught in their own homes that being mean to get what you want is okay? So, uh, no, we didn't need a Slugworth. We have FOUR villains/antivillains already who are ripe for the studying, and I love those greedy kids with my whole heart. TL;DR you're 100% correct and thank you for validating me. Signed, someone who grew up on the book and always had issues with the older movie because of that
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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’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
@@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.
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.
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
@@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.
A lot of people mostly hate on the 2005 movie for Wonka's haircut, 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.
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
@@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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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
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
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
"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.
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. 😇
@@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 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.
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!!
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 actually enjoy the interpretation of Charlie as disobedient. It reminds me similarly of Guiermo del Torro’s “Pinocchio” in that sometimes rebellion can be a virtue, which is true of both Charlie & Wonka. Understand why the 2005 adaptation flattens him so it allows him to go the whole film not changing his stances, and everyone around him learns a lesson, but a little more of a personality would have made the film a notch better.
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.
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
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.
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)
Charlie & the Chocolate Factory is genuinely in my top 5 favorite films. Immensely quotable, always entertaining, and full of wonder upon each rewatch.
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
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
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.
Man THANK YOU for making this video! Everyone I knew thought I was crazy for not liking the original very much, and they complained about how "Wonka's too creepy" despite how like you said, its closer to the book. I do want to give my two cents about the ending though, Charlie DID decline the factory at first, but after the reconciliation, he ended up taking the offer with everyone able to go. I'll admit that re-watching Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory gave me a FAR greater appreciation for its humor, but I still opine that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is more faithful, far better paced, and my preferred version. 47:53 Also you took the words right out of my mouth here.
Glad I’m not the only one who thinks Media Momentos was being a little judgemental on Charlie’s decision. joshscorcher did say how it’s one thing to punish those other kids, but having to deny Charlie’s family is going too far.
if the version you prefer is more faithful to the book which supports monopolys and slavery vs the version rewritten to condemn that you need to do some self reflection
@@GBazo-en5elHow did the Wilder version condemn monopolies and slave labour? Lmao! Both movies treat Wonka’s monopoly as a good thing and both show that Wonka wants to protect the Oompa Loompas. Granted the Depp version is a bit too reliant on the “primitive culture needs a white man saviour” trope, which is from the book, admittedly. But both treat the OL as their own little mascots. And the Depp version does at least show a bit of respect for their original “culture.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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."
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
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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 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
@@Raddish-Is-Raddfor me dispite growing up will Willy wonka and the chocolate factory for me liking it better isn’t that it’s the original version of the story it’s more how the actors played the roles better then in the Johnny depp version and the candy room with the river of chocolate looked more inviting and just because depp’s version was more faithful to the source material doesn’t automatically make it better we saw this with Zack Snyder’s watchman where it’s almost a 100% panel for panel recreation of the graphic novel and people still hated it Burton was the wrong choice for the movie from an esthetic perspective cause he made the factory and unwelcoming place when we actually get inside of it wilder’s factory is more welcoming and we see more of the inventor side of wonka with the rooms visited like the lickable wallpaper the edible cup and saucer for example
@@kevin10001 " the candy room with the river of chocolate looked more inviting" If you are talking about the Johny Depp version, then yes. If the original, then you are out of your mind. The river looked like liquid feces in the original. No real chocolate texture, jsut brown water.
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
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 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.
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.
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
Personally I like both versions The 70s version is a lot funnier, but the 2000s version is way more charming along with its accuracy to the book. I can’t really decide which one’s better, it’s like comparing apples to oranges
If there's one thing in this world that's objective: this is NOT a remake. It's not a cheap sell out meant to make a quick buck on a classic film. It's just a second adaptation of a good book, meant to be seen as another perspective of the story, like Christmas Carol, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, or Batman. Most of the creators of this movie haven't even seen the 70s film, and it shows. The various adaptations of the Ninja Turtles comics have more similarities with each other. The various adaptations of The Grinch are more worth comparisons. The Disney version of Beauty and the Beast have more in common with Jean Cocteau's version, than this version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory does with the other one. The same thing goes for the criminally underrated play in London that, dare I say it, does a lot of things I find better than both of these combined. I get it. Some adaptations are impossible to compete against, even if you're not trying to. No matter how many new versions of The Wizard of Oz you make, we'll still think of Judy Garland. If there was another Mary Poppins film meant to cater to what Travis would've wanted, I'd still probably like the Disney one a little more. If there was another Roger Rabbit that wasn't meant to cater to what Gary K. Wolf would've wanted, as he absolutely loves the completely different touchstone film still stays true to the premise and themes of the book, but with more likable characters. But that won't stop people who want to enter their own version into the ring.
Rewatching this video made me realize the children's bad behaviors can be attributed to how their families raised them. Veruca is spoiled rotten, her parents giving her everything she wants Mike's parents are hands off and let the TV raise him Violet's mother is a soccer mom that wants her daughter to be the best Augustus' parents are permissive and enable his superiority complex In a way it can be a critique of certain parenting styles, and I think that's valid as heck
"Who went and spoiled her, who indeed? Who pandered to her every need? Who turned her into such a brat? Who are the culprits, who did that? The guilty ones, now this is sad Dear old Mum, and loving... Dad."
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
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
Now personally I love the 2005 version more than the 1970 version, and that's mostly because the characters felt like rotten characters and cautionary tales, my personal favorite was Agustus Gloop and Violet Beauregard, Agustus really reminded me of someone who is very gluttonous, and Violet definitely reminds me of an overachiever pressured by their parents.
See that how I always took it when I’d watch Burton growing up. Kind of like those early fairy tales when they were told to kids so they’d learn a lesson, and a lot of em were super eerie and dark. And a lot of people don’t like to mix dark themes in kids media still , for me burtons proves that there is a, for a lack of better word, “sensible” way to teach kids something in a scary but fun manner
As a 90s Brazilian i can assure the 2005 movie is absolutely beloved here, for most of my life i didn't even know about the 70's version and we adore everything burton/depp here too
Facts Bro, as a Brazilian, I have to say, always preferred the 2005 version. E sendo bem honesto, sempre que alguém que quer bancar o especialista em filmes ver querer falar mal do filme, eu sou o primeiro a defender.
@@viniciushenrique6672 kkkk o filme de 1971 não é nem um pouco conhecido fora dos EUA. é só que os estadunidenses se acham melhores que todos e falam que o de 71 é melhor só porque é popular só no país deles. Você tentar falar pra um americano que o de 2005 é melhor seria tipo falar com uma parede.
@@ahofujoshi Funny thing, down here in LatAm it's the same thing. Many people know the '05 film from their childhood and barely anyone knows the '71 version. Unfortunately, most people who do know the '71 film think it's better than the '05 film.
Lemme just say: my mom who doesn’t care for Tim Burton movies and who grew up loving the og movie, watched the Charlie and The Chocolate Factory movie for the first a couple months ago and said she liked it better. I was surprised but happy
7:15 - 7:51: Actually, I like the ending. If they're gonna bring up Wonka having an "I have no son" story arc, you might as well give it a resolution; otherwise, Charlie would not see his family, if he was told AFTER accepting the offer, which would ruin who Charlie is: a kid who is very kind and well-meaning, and thinks of others before thinking of himself. The movie is suppose to portray Wonka and Charlie as complete opposites of each other: Wonka is an introvert who never trusts anyone because of his abusive relationship, and Charlie is an extrovert who looks to thinking positive and helping others. I say this movie is perfect in it's execution for telling a story about trust. Heck, you even said so yourself in your own review!: 48:05 - 49:31 Yes, Charlie shot down the idea of joining Wonka because of *Wonka’s* selfish needs, but Charlie felt it would be unfair to exclude his family from being in the factory, given the hard times they were going through BEFORE Charlie won the ticket. If they don't get in the factory, then neither should Charlie. Also, this is suppose to make Wonka think about his actions after that.
@@jacksnow54104 I see them both as introverts. Charlie is shy but kind since he's spent his whole life in a very loving family with lots of interaction. Wonka is an introvert who is forced on stage by his need for a successor, but he is awkward and a bit cruel because, since he closed his factory down, he hasn't spoken to anyone who could possibly relate. He's unhinged. I think the movie is about bringing their minds towards one another, absorbing each other's best traits. Wonka's imagination and Charlie's kindness. Side note: I think Johnny Depp was a great cast for Wonka because Depp is at heart and introvert. He doesn't like attention. He plays these really extravagant characters like Jack Sparrow so the attention is not focused on him but the character. Many people who are creative do this. They have this character that has traits that they want so when the situation calls for it, they change character to be capable of doing those things.
@Eleanor Cooke Yeah I can see where you are coming from of them being shy vs forced outgoingness and I also agree that Johnny Depp was perfect for Wonka
My gosh. God bless you, sir. This video is incredible. I agreed with like... everything you've said. I am a humongous fan of the 2005 version and still like 1971 sorta but have issues with it. And you've taught me even more then I already knew. And that end part about the fans made me so happy, especially since people like Bobsheaux, Joshscorcher, the Theorizer and many more have come out about this. Just wow. Another great video to recommend to my friends!
(This is me speaking on another YT account) Though I will admit there are a few mistakes and research failures here and there, like how Paramount originally made and released film instead of WB, or how the chocolate river in both versions was actually in some way slightly different from how you described it. Still, great take on the two films, as both hold a special place in my heart.
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
I have no idea why this was recommended to me. I've literally never had an issue with either film. I don't search stuff up about this either. But thoroughly entertained through the entire video. Good job man.
Christopher Lee was MAGNIFICENT in this. Also,describing Augustus as "enormous " instead of "fat" proves you either had a psychic premonition of the coming literary vandalism of Dahls works or were in on it. I prefer this version as well.
As much as I liked and still like the Willy Wonka film, I actually think that Charlie is the superior one of the two. There were a lot of things about the Willy Wonka film that I didn’t even pick up on, like the Slugworth subplot being abandoned after the characters get to the factory, the characters themselves not being faithful to the book, and so on. It only reminds me that saying Charlie isn’t a remake but just a new adaptation of the book is spot on because it’s not a remake of the Wonka film at all and it does justice to Roald Dahl’s original book. Great analysis on both! I really enjoyed it.
I use to like the wonka version more but over time and the more I watch the Charlie version the more I like the Charlie version. So I think the Charlie version better.
There's also some elements that neither movie covered, such as how Wonka is very old despite his youthful appearance, has invented a drug that regresses a persons age by 20 years per pill, and has traveled in space and fought aliens Have I mentioned that there is a very popular fan theory that Wonka is the final incarnation of Doctor Who?
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 😡
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.
I am so glad someone finally brought up how this movie isn't bad. I loved it as a kid, and still do! It's accurate to the books, it conveys its story through the props really well, the architecture is just implanted in my memory, etc.
Thank you! Every time I watch Charlie I don’t get the hatred at all I always read Dahl’s books and my mum recorded the Willy wonka version on tv when I was 7 years old and while I thought it was okay I was kind of disappointed. I kept watching Matilda from then on. It wasn’t until I saw the trailer for Charlie and I was already blown away and when I saw it in theatres I felt like I was in a whole new world. Literally every element was better. The music is one of my favourite movie soundtracks. The visuals leap off the screen. While the characters are definitely Dahl-esque they felt way more relatable and real. I will always support Charlie no matter how much people criticise it
Tim Burton made so much magic in that film and in Alice in Wonderland. My inner child is in love with this film because it's such a fabulous world that feels like it could be totally real. I'm currently trying to write a book and the scenery and magic is all based off of the chocolate room. I'm still in love.
The hatred I think was just some people not understanding that it was a different adaptation and perhaps the marketing could have done better to establish this wasn’t the same movie but redone. I imagine a lot of the backlash was that plus the classic status quo types who like things to stay the same. Maybe if the marketing had done better then people might see both as good films with different strengths and weaknesses
It' a pretty bad and nothing to bring movie regardless of what it adapts, except for the special effects and looks. At least is not a debuchery like that awful Alice movie
Agree to disagree on the Wonka version. In my opinion that film is far superior to the 2005 film and even beats the og book. No contest. But I do still enjoy the 2005 version when it’s not compared to the original. It’s still a pretty decent film. At least it’s not a travesty like burtons Alice films which ruined the timeless 1951 animated masterpiece
@@YoungtinmanAre you sure you’re able to tell the difference between Depp’s performance as an awkward, socially inept Wonka and himself being uncomfortable? He’s awkward and incapable of much socialisation. That was the role and feel Depp was hired for. He did it well. It’s a matter of whether it was a good character choice that’s at fault here. I’d say it was. In all my time alive, I’ve always been pretty socially awkward. Didn’t take long to learn that many people, for some reason still unknown to me, demand that you be sociable from the time you’re little as often as they can be, and it’s apparently “grating” or “you being difficult” to be unable to hold a conversation. I’ve had to learn to cope because I’m not a brilliant and well-off creative holed up in a chocolate factory, but why would Wonka? He’s a businessman who likely doesn’t have to do much of the business but does all the creative work. Willy Wonka wouldn’t be served by trying to be more personable in the sterile, clinical business world, and he naturally appears to warm up to those he’s familiar with in the right situation. Willy Wonka has no reason to not be the social etiquette equivalent to nails on a chalkboard, in fact he’s served by it so he can get on with his day.
Oh he’s so zany and wacky with his silly lame voice and MJ look. Gene played wonka with more nuance. Something Depp has none off. He’s not in the same league as wilder
I was always impressed by how even though Veruca Salt was supposed to be a spoiled rich girl, she kept her cool throughout most of the factory tour until the party got to the Nut Room. And even when she was told No, she wasn't *THAT* loud or whiny. Now personally, I liked Julie Dawn Cole's performance in the 1971 movie for what it is. She did a great job at making me hate this spoiled little wart, even if she did go overboard in the aggressive department. But Julia Winter made her feel more like an upperclass rich girl, and not just someone who screams "I want this, and I want that!"
I like Johnny Depp’s version of Wonka a lot more. He’s so much more psychotic and messed up in the head, which perfectly fits the character who consistently shows no concern for children im life threatening situations. Plus that damn laugh he makes after he says something is SO FUCKING GOOD.
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.
I feel like people only had that initial reaction to the Charlie version because they didn't know about the book. I've only read snippets of it on standardized tests, and I've never seen any copies when I would go to my favorite book stores. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I just wonder if other people were unfamiliar with the original work.
I barely remember the book version, but I do remember that the book had the Glass Elevator crash through the roof of the Buckets’ House like in the Tim Burton movie.
Dahl was huge for kids growing up in the UK. Most of the people I knew at the time had most, if not all of his books. I was too young for the first film but I remember loving the second film because Charlie and the chocolate factory was my favourite book at the time. I got around to watching the first film but it just didn't hold the same magic for me.
Tbh i didnt even know there was a book. I had found the sequel in my school library but i was so confused cuz something about it felt familiar. I hadnt seen the movie in a long time so it took really long to connect the dots before i realised what the book was
Oh thank god. I've always felt kind of guilty for liking the tim burton one SO MUCH more than the first one. It's a masterstroke of a movie, absolutely amazing in every way from Wonka's character arc to the ending.
I could never put my finger on the vibe and style the movie gives me, but "dark Dr. Seuss" is perfect it does kind of have a similar look and feel to the live action adaptations of those books.
Thank you for finally giving this movie the love it deserves. One of my earliest memories of watching TV as a child was watching the Nut Room scene. I didn't even know that the movie was about candy back then, but it still is ingrained in my memory. When I became a little older, this became one of my favorite movies, I have probably watched it almost 10 times and never get tired of it. I honestly get super pissed when someone calls it a terrible movie and a remake because they always just do it out of nostalgia and not because they care for examining the film critically. I watched the 1971 movie much later in life and I loved it too, so I never get why people have to always judge something by comparing it with an earlier adaptation. I think we should try to enjoy movies on their own and not have a kneejerk reaction to someone making another adaptation of the same story.
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
”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 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.”_
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
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.
@@Shoxic666 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.
"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
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.
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
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 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
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?
@@thecoolbroscoolman4672oo99oooooop0o9
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
12:32 an example of such is: “Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?” Dumbledore asked calmly.
*_HARRYDIDYOUPUTYOURNAMEINTHEGOBLETOFFIYAH?!_*
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. 😂
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???
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?
Clearly you aren't acoustic
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
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
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 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
First of all, THANK YOU. I have been trying to argue this for YEARS. So here's the thing - I was a little kid in the 90s, and I was one of those "read anything and everything I can get my hands on" kids. My list of nostalgia books would be several pages long. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the book, was one of the staples of my childhood, as I was an avid Dahl reader (or, y'know, a reader of the Dahl work that was child-appropriate). My favorite genre was (and is) fantasy, especially fantasy that goes outside the LOTR formula of elves and dragons in a D&D world to do some WEIRD things. I categorize C&tCF as that brand of fantasy that is obviously about magical and supernatural elements, but takes it in a framework that most might not recognize as traditional fantasy. And I LOVED that. It was bizarre. It was DIFFERENT. And it was colorful - my mental images of the factory as this wonderland of weirdness were so strong. I did also read Great Glass Elevator, and agree with you that it's not as good - its two acts are disjointed (one is about space travel and the other is about "oops we took too much fountain-of-youth serum and now one of us literally died from de-aging") and the Vermicious Knid section kind of takes it a bit further from charismatic-yet-dark into just straight-up horror. Which I don't mind in children's books in general, but tonally, it was jarring for THIS duology.
Anyway, when I was that small kid, Gene Wilder's version of the movie was all we had, basically, so I tried to watch it in order to get more content of that world I loved...and was so disappointed because it changed so much. It didn't feel like the world of the book in the slightest. I don't need to tell you why; it's all outlined here. Long before Burton EVER put out his version, I was disappointed with what the other one had to offer me, and it was literally the only option.
Then Burton made his. It got a lot of detractors, and I think one thing that's worth noting is that it wasn't *just* about the Wilder version being everyone's favorite but also because at the time, we as a pop culture society had a bit of Tim Burton fatigue. He had this really productive streak around that time where he was churning out movie after movie, but people were starting to draw connections between him casting the same actors (Depp, Bonham Carter, and before them Keaton), hiring the same composer (Elfman), using the same art and costuming styles (or the lanky animation found in TNBC/Corpse Bride), and basically building a particular aesthetic brand in all his films. Either you loved it or you hated it, and a lot of people were just ready for variety and hated it out of that alone. I personally really loved the Burton aesthetic for a long time - I'm kinda easy to please as long as a film is visually stunning, and even though Burton's style is instantly recognizable, it is so because it's always OVER THE TOP and I love that. And the only reason I say "loved" in the past tense is just because it went from one of my favorite movie styles to being a drop in a much larger pool of film style I like now. But a lot of people were just "Oh he just went for Depp and Elfman again and it's another movie about something that's creepy and goth but not evil" and wrote it off simply because they wanted something new. Which is the way of film critics; all trends eventually garner criticism simply for being trends, and that's not good or bad intrinsically.
The point is that I never saw Burton's version in theaters because even back then, everyone was panning it, and the criticisms I heard in real time weren't even about the Willy Wonka film, they were about "Oh Tim is back doing THIS again, we're all sick of it"
But then I caught it on a TV rerun and I was BLOWN AWAY because I could tell IMMEDIATELY that this was more faithful to the world I had known through the book. When little things happened like the cutaway to the prince who commissioned a chocolate palace, I was like "NO ONE EVER REMEMBERS THAT PART! THAT'S ATTENTION TO DETAIL!". Now, I was in fact a little miffed by the dad flashbacks with Wonka, especially because they took away some of Wonka's mystery (I always liked thinking that perhaps the reason his life and world were so bizarre was because he maybe wasn't quite human), buuuuuut in the end, I let that go because I was a super fan of Christopher Lee and his amazing baritone. And nowadays, having gained more real-world experience, I gotta say that the way you describe Wonka's interests, lack of social skill, and strained relationship with his parents SCREAMS neurodivergent/autistic. I'm not sure if that was Burton's intent, but the film really took the prompt of "give Willy Wonka a backstory" and made it something incredibly relatable to a lot of us who were growing up realizing our brains were a wee bit different and people were laughing at us for it. So yeah, I'm okay sacrificing Wonka being a potential supernatural entity if it means he can actually be a metaphor for something that needs to be pointed out.
Anyway, I'm a big villain fan, but not the normal kind, and from the very start, I agreed with you on everything Slugworth. From "This guy wasn't in the book" to "Where'd that subplot go?" to "Does...this mean...there never was a Slugworth...?". You know who my absolute favorite characters are? The four kids who failed the tour. Augustus, Violet, Veruca, and Mike. I am FASCINATED by them because they all are such little gremlins. It's like...we've all known kids who were annoying in those exact ways, and you wanna feel bad for them because they are just kids, but at the same time, you KNOW that if they don't learn some lessons soon, they're going to grow into obnoxious, entitled, and downright evil adults. Making them so "oh they're just innocent kids with flaws" in the first film was probably why so many people decided to interpret Willy Wonka as this secretly edgy horror character, because the kids aren't getting what they deserve. The Burton film is very clear that these kids ruined their own fates by not listening to the rules laid out and doing things that were downright dangerous to themselves and others for no other reason than that they wanted to serve themselves. All they can think about is what they want RIGHT NOW, and so they'll run over everyone and everything else to get there. That makes them FUN and so much cooler characters to think about than kinda being generically nice kids. And it gets one thinking about the vicious cycles of parenting that brought them to life - how their parents were all probably mean kids too, and those parents before them, and these four will probably one day have mean kids of their own, and man, how much of society's evils come from kids being taught in their own homes that being mean to get what you want is okay? So, uh, no, we didn't need a Slugworth. We have FOUR villains/antivillains already who are ripe for the studying, and I love those greedy kids with my whole heart.
TL;DR you're 100% correct and thank you for validating me. Signed, someone who grew up on the book and always had issues with the older movie because of that
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 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.
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.
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
Willy Wonka is better than
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.
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
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.
A lot of people mostly hate on the 2005 movie for Wonka's haircut, 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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
@@suave-rider Thank you, I was aware of that mistake later on but forgot to correct it but will do so now.
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
Definitely worth reading, I'm that old I read it before seeing the first film.
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
"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.
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 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?
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!!
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 actually enjoy the interpretation of Charlie as disobedient. It reminds me similarly of Guiermo del Torro’s “Pinocchio” in that sometimes rebellion can be a virtue, which is true of both Charlie & Wonka.
Understand why the 2005 adaptation flattens him so it allows him to go the whole film not changing his stances, and everyone around him learns a lesson, but a little more of a personality would have made the film a notch better.
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 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.
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)
Charlie & the Chocolate Factory is genuinely in my top 5 favorite films. Immensely quotable, always entertaining, and full of wonder upon each rewatch.
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
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.
Man THANK YOU for making this video! Everyone I knew thought I was crazy for not liking the original very much, and they complained about how "Wonka's too creepy" despite how like you said, its closer to the book. I do want to give my two cents about the ending though, Charlie DID decline the factory at first, but after the reconciliation, he ended up taking the offer with everyone able to go. I'll admit that re-watching Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory gave me a FAR greater appreciation for its humor, but I still opine that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is more faithful, far better paced, and my preferred version.
47:53 Also you took the words right out of my mouth here.
Glad I’m not the only one who thinks Media Momentos was being a little judgemental on Charlie’s decision. joshscorcher did say how it’s one thing to punish those other kids, but having to deny Charlie’s family is going too far.
@benpodvia5744actually, it's better than that. Wonka gave them a replica of their own house in the factory.
@@kylemorello4787 Oh, when I saw the ending, I thought they just literally moved the house into the factory, not that it was a replica
if the version you prefer is more faithful to the book which supports monopolys and slavery vs the version rewritten to condemn that you need to do some self reflection
@@GBazo-en5elHow did the Wilder version condemn monopolies and slave labour? Lmao! Both movies treat Wonka’s monopoly as a good thing and both show that Wonka wants to protect the Oompa Loompas. Granted the Depp version is a bit too reliant on the “primitive culture needs a white man saviour” trope, which is from the book, admittedly. But both treat the OL as their own little mascots. And the Depp version does at least show a bit of respect for their original “culture.”
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.
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 like how there’s names like “veruca” and “augustus” and then there’s just “mike”
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
It works perfectly, it fits the 2000's halo mtn dew edge era. Another good name would be Kyle.
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.
Ive always loved the Charlie And The Chocolate Factory and you've helped me understand why. Thx bro
A commie loving a movie about a billionaire choc mogul capitalist? Now, I have seen everything...
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."
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'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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
If Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was the first film, it would have definitely been a lot more memorable, and liked
Well, that's sad, because it means that the value only come from how antique it is.
It’s on the same level 🥱 People just being delusional.
That's bias for ya, people only like the original because it's the original.
@@Raddish-Is-Raddfor me dispite growing up will Willy wonka and the chocolate factory for me liking it better isn’t that it’s the original version of the story it’s more how the actors played the roles better then in the Johnny depp version and the candy room with the river of chocolate looked more inviting and just because depp’s version was more faithful to the source material doesn’t automatically make it better we saw this with Zack Snyder’s watchman where it’s almost a 100% panel for panel recreation of the graphic novel and people still hated it Burton was the wrong choice for the movie from an esthetic perspective cause he made the factory and unwelcoming place when we actually get inside of it wilder’s factory is more welcoming and we see more of the inventor side of wonka with the rooms visited like the lickable wallpaper the edible cup and saucer for example
@@kevin10001 " the candy room with the river of chocolate looked more inviting"
If you are talking about the Johny Depp version, then yes.
If the original, then you are out of your mind. The river looked like liquid feces in the original. No real chocolate texture, jsut brown water.
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 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.
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 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.
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
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?
In my opinion, the flashbacks are the best part of the movie.
Christopher Lee saying " *Lollypops* " will never not be funny😂
Personally I like both versions
The 70s version is a lot funnier, but the 2000s version is way more charming along with its accuracy to the book.
I can’t really decide which one’s better, it’s like comparing apples to oranges
Same.
I'd say it's more like comparing Lemons and Limes, both similar Citruses but one is a little more sour.
@@KingsBard nice analogy; people should use that more often.
@@KingsBard indeed
If there's one thing in this world that's objective: this is NOT a remake. It's not a cheap sell out meant to make a quick buck on a classic film. It's just a second adaptation of a good book, meant to be seen as another perspective of the story, like Christmas Carol, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, or Batman. Most of the creators of this movie haven't even seen the 70s film, and it shows. The various adaptations of the Ninja Turtles comics have more similarities with each other. The various adaptations of The Grinch are more worth comparisons. The Disney version of Beauty and the Beast have more in common with Jean Cocteau's version, than this version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory does with the other one. The same thing goes for the criminally underrated play in London that, dare I say it, does a lot of things I find better than both of these combined.
I get it. Some adaptations are impossible to compete against, even if you're not trying to. No matter how many new versions of The Wizard of Oz you make, we'll still think of Judy Garland. If there was another Mary Poppins film meant to cater to what Travis would've wanted, I'd still probably like the Disney one a little more. If there was another Roger Rabbit that wasn't meant to cater to what Gary K. Wolf would've wanted, as he absolutely loves the completely different touchstone film still stays true to the premise and themes of the book, but with more likable characters. But that won't stop people who want to enter their own version into the ring.
Rewatching this video made me realize the children's bad behaviors can be attributed to how their families raised them.
Veruca is spoiled rotten, her parents giving her everything she wants
Mike's parents are hands off and let the TV raise him
Violet's mother is a soccer mom that wants her daughter to be the best
Augustus' parents are permissive and enable his superiority complex
In a way it can be a critique of certain parenting styles, and I think that's valid as heck
"Who went and spoiled her, who indeed?
Who pandered to her every need?
Who turned her into such a brat?
Who are the culprits, who did that?
The guilty ones, now this is sad
Dear old Mum, and loving... Dad."
Was that not obvious from either film that’s the entire point of the songs. No matter which version
Yes that is literally the whole point well done
The fact it took watching the original films, then this video, TWICE! To understand that concept of baffling, staggering and frankly embarrassing.
@@alexjames7144 Also that should just be general knowledge seperate from watching these movies haha.
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 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
Now personally I love the 2005 version more than the 1970 version, and that's mostly because the characters felt like rotten characters and cautionary tales, my personal favorite was Agustus Gloop and Violet Beauregard, Agustus really reminded me of someone who is very gluttonous, and Violet definitely reminds me of an overachiever pressured by their parents.
See that how I always took it when I’d watch Burton growing up. Kind of like those early fairy tales when they were told to kids so they’d learn a lesson, and a lot of em were super eerie and dark.
And a lot of people don’t like to mix dark themes in kids media still , for me burtons proves that there is a, for a lack of better word, “sensible” way to teach kids something in a scary but fun manner
As a 90s Brazilian i can assure the 2005 movie is absolutely beloved here, for most of my life i didn't even know about the 70's version and we adore everything burton/depp here too
Cool! I love Tim Burton movies as well! Charlie and the chocolate factory is my favorite one from him!
Facts Bro, as a Brazilian, I have to say, always preferred the 2005 version.
E sendo bem honesto, sempre que alguém que quer bancar o especialista em filmes ver querer falar mal do filme, eu sou o primeiro a defender.
@@viniciushenrique6672 kkkk o filme de 1971 não é nem um pouco conhecido fora dos EUA. é só que os estadunidenses se acham melhores que todos e falam que o de 71 é melhor só porque é popular só no país deles. Você tentar falar pra um americano que o de 2005 é melhor seria tipo falar com uma parede.
@@ahofujoshi Funny thing, down here in LatAm it's the same thing. Many people know the '05 film from their childhood and barely anyone knows the '71 version. Unfortunately, most people who do know the '71 film think it's better than the '05 film.
Lemme just say: my mom who doesn’t care for Tim Burton movies and who grew up loving the og movie, watched the Charlie and The Chocolate Factory movie for the first a couple months ago and said she liked it better. I was surprised but happy
7:15 - 7:51: Actually, I like the ending. If they're gonna bring up Wonka having an "I have no son" story arc, you might as well give it a resolution; otherwise, Charlie would not see his family, if he was told AFTER accepting the offer, which would ruin who Charlie is: a kid who is very kind and well-meaning, and thinks of others before thinking of himself. The movie is suppose to portray Wonka and Charlie as complete opposites of each other: Wonka is an introvert who never trusts anyone because of his abusive relationship, and Charlie is an extrovert who looks to thinking positive and helping others. I say this movie is perfect in it's execution for telling a story about trust. Heck, you even said so yourself in your own review!: 48:05 - 49:31
Yes, Charlie shot down the idea of joining Wonka because of *Wonka’s* selfish needs, but Charlie felt it would be unfair to exclude his family from being in the factory, given the hard times they were going through BEFORE Charlie won the ticket. If they don't get in the factory, then neither should Charlie. Also, this is suppose to make Wonka think about his actions after that.
I agree to this except for the fact of introvert vs extravert. I find Charlie to be an outgoing introvert while Wonka is a shy extravert
@@jacksnow54104 I see them both as introverts. Charlie is shy but kind since he's spent his whole life in a very loving family with lots of interaction. Wonka is an introvert who is forced on stage by his need for a successor, but he is awkward and a bit cruel because, since he closed his factory down, he hasn't spoken to anyone who could possibly relate. He's unhinged.
I think the movie is about bringing their minds towards one another, absorbing each other's best traits. Wonka's imagination and Charlie's kindness.
Side note: I think Johnny Depp was a great cast for Wonka because Depp is at heart and introvert. He doesn't like attention. He plays these really extravagant characters like Jack Sparrow so the attention is not focused on him but the character. Many people who are creative do this. They have this character that has traits that they want so when the situation calls for it, they change character to be capable of doing those things.
@Eleanor Cooke Yeah I can see where you are coming from of them being shy vs forced outgoingness and I also agree that Johnny Depp was perfect for Wonka
My gosh. God bless you, sir. This video is incredible. I agreed with like... everything you've said. I am a humongous fan of the 2005 version and still like 1971 sorta but have issues with it. And you've taught me even more then I already knew. And that end part about the fans made me so happy, especially since people like Bobsheaux, Joshscorcher, the Theorizer and many more have come out about this. Just wow. Another great video to recommend to my friends!
(This is me speaking on another YT account) Though I will admit there are a few mistakes and research failures here and there, like how Paramount originally made and released film instead of WB, or how the chocolate river in both versions was actually in some way slightly different from how you described it. Still, great take on the two films, as both hold a special place in my heart.
This should have way more views. I agree with everything! I never understood why the newer film always got so much hate.
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
I have no idea why this was recommended to me. I've literally never had an issue with either film. I don't search stuff up about this either.
But thoroughly entertained through the entire video. Good job man.
Christopher Lee was MAGNIFICENT in this. Also,describing Augustus as "enormous " instead of "fat" proves you either had a psychic premonition of the coming literary vandalism of Dahls works
or were in on it. I prefer this version as well.
L O L L I P O P S
L O L L I P O P S !
*slow uncomfortable lean in* LoLlIpOpS
As much as I liked and still like the Willy Wonka film, I actually think that Charlie is the superior one of the two. There were a lot of things about the Willy Wonka film that I didn’t even pick up on, like the Slugworth subplot being abandoned after the characters get to the factory, the characters themselves not being faithful to the book, and so on. It only reminds me that saying Charlie isn’t a remake but just a new adaptation of the book is spot on because it’s not a remake of the Wonka film at all and it does justice to Roald Dahl’s original book. Great analysis on both! I really enjoyed it.
I use to like the wonka version more but over time and the more I watch the Charlie version the more I like the Charlie version. So I think the Charlie version better.
@@jillseltzer8009 even with the “I have no son” subplot?
There's also some elements that neither movie covered, such as how Wonka is very old despite his youthful appearance, has invented a drug that regresses a persons age by 20 years per pill, and has traveled in space and fought aliens
Have I mentioned that there is a very popular fan theory that Wonka is the final incarnation of Doctor Who?
I agree
@@recjr7685 Okay, Wonka knowing about him getting old was mentioned, but you’re right about him inventing a drug was not mentioned at all.
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.
I am so glad someone finally brought up how this movie isn't bad. I loved it as a kid, and still do! It's accurate to the books, it conveys its story through the props really well, the architecture is just implanted in my memory, etc.
YWN.
@@Chumpal Your wmom ngay
@@ULTRAKILLPenelope Ain't you the people who say there's nothing wrong in that?
Odd thing to use as an insult in that case.
@@Chumpaldamn
@@Chumpalyou know irony is a thing right?
Thank you! Every time I watch Charlie I don’t get the hatred at all
I always read Dahl’s books and my mum recorded the Willy wonka version on tv when I was 7 years old and while I thought it was okay I was kind of disappointed. I kept watching Matilda from then on. It wasn’t until I saw the trailer for Charlie and I was already blown away and when I saw it in theatres I felt like I was in a whole new world. Literally every element was better.
The music is one of my favourite movie soundtracks. The visuals leap off the screen. While the characters are definitely Dahl-esque they felt way more relatable and real.
I will always support Charlie no matter how much people criticise it
Tim Burton made so much magic in that film and in Alice in Wonderland. My inner child is in love with this film because it's such a fabulous world that feels like it could be totally real. I'm currently trying to write a book and the scenery and magic is all based off of the chocolate room. I'm still in love.
The hatred I think was just some people not understanding that it was a different adaptation and perhaps the marketing could have done better to establish this wasn’t the same movie but redone. I imagine a lot of the backlash was that plus the classic status quo types who like things to stay the same. Maybe if the marketing had done better then people might see both as good films with different strengths and weaknesses
It' a pretty bad and nothing to bring movie regardless of what it adapts, except for the special effects and looks. At least is not a debuchery like that awful Alice movie
Agree to disagree on the Wonka version. In my opinion that film is far superior to the 2005 film and even beats the og book. No contest. But I do still enjoy the 2005 version when it’s not compared to the original. It’s still a pretty decent film. At least it’s not a travesty like burtons Alice films which ruined the timeless 1951 animated masterpiece
Johnny Depp was perfect as Willy Wonka, and you can tell that he enjoyed every moment of it.
Except when he hurt his nose from bumping full force into the glass elevator
Disagree on both. Johnny Depp is extremely grating as Wonka and looks like he can’t wait until the take is over.
@@YoungtinmanAre you sure you’re able to tell the difference between Depp’s performance as an awkward, socially inept Wonka and himself being uncomfortable? He’s awkward and incapable of much socialisation. That was the role and feel Depp was hired for. He did it well.
It’s a matter of whether it was a good character choice that’s at fault here. I’d say it was. In all my time alive, I’ve always been pretty socially awkward. Didn’t take long to learn that many people, for some reason still unknown to me, demand that you be sociable from the time you’re little as often as they can be, and it’s apparently “grating” or “you being difficult” to be unable to hold a conversation. I’ve had to learn to cope because I’m not a brilliant and well-off creative holed up in a chocolate factory, but why would Wonka? He’s a businessman who likely doesn’t have to do much of the business but does all the creative work. Willy Wonka wouldn’t be served by trying to be more personable in the sterile, clinical business world, and he naturally appears to warm up to those he’s familiar with in the right situation. Willy Wonka has no reason to not be the social etiquette equivalent to nails on a chalkboard, in fact he’s served by it so he can get on with his day.
Oh he’s so zany and wacky with his silly lame voice and MJ look. Gene played wonka with more nuance. Something Depp has none off. He’s not in the same league as wilder
@@paulwoodford1984 100% agreed, this is one of his worse "performances" and this movie sucks
I was always impressed by how even though Veruca Salt was supposed to be a spoiled rich girl, she kept her cool throughout most of the factory tour until the party got to the Nut Room. And even when she was told No, she wasn't *THAT* loud or whiny.
Now personally, I liked Julie Dawn Cole's performance in the 1971 movie for what it is. She did a great job at making me hate this spoiled little wart, even if she did go overboard in the aggressive department. But Julia Winter made her feel more like an upperclass rich girl, and not just someone who screams "I want this, and I want that!"
I like Johnny Depp’s version of Wonka a lot more. He’s so much more psychotic and messed up in the head, which perfectly fits the character who consistently shows no concern for children im life threatening situations. Plus that damn laugh he makes after he says something is SO FUCKING GOOD.
The cannibalism jokes were the best thing about this great movie
Additional points!!
the VHS smells like hot plastic when you take it out after watching.
_the DVD smells like chocolate_
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.
“Everything in this room is edible, even me. But that is called cannibalism, my dear children. And it is frowned upon in most societies.”
Eatable
The line is everything in this room is eatable
I feel like people only had that initial reaction to the Charlie version because they didn't know about the book. I've only read snippets of it on standardized tests, and I've never seen any copies when I would go to my favorite book stores. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I just wonder if other people were unfamiliar with the original work.
I barely remember the book version, but I do remember that the book had the Glass Elevator crash through the roof of the Buckets’ House like in the Tim Burton movie.
@@robbiewalker2831 and there was a copy of it at my school libary but that was it
Dahl was huge for kids growing up in the UK. Most of the people I knew at the time had most, if not all of his books. I was too young for the first film but I remember loving the second film because Charlie and the chocolate factory was my favourite book at the time. I got around to watching the first film but it just didn't hold the same magic for me.
The version I read was basically word for word the movie, even the songs are the same
Tbh i didnt even know there was a book. I had found the sequel in my school library but i was so confused cuz something about it felt familiar. I hadnt seen the movie in a long time so it took really long to connect the dots before i realised what the book was
Oh thank god. I've always felt kind of guilty for liking the tim burton one SO MUCH more than the first one. It's a masterstroke of a movie, absolutely amazing in every way from Wonka's character arc to the ending.
I could never put my finger on the vibe and style the movie gives me, but "dark Dr. Seuss" is perfect it does kind of have a similar look and feel to the live action adaptations of those books.
Fun fact, Danny Elfman was going to write a musical with Dr. Seuss before he died.
Thank you for finally giving this movie the love it deserves. One of my earliest memories of watching TV as a child was watching the Nut Room scene. I didn't even know that the movie was about candy back then, but it still is ingrained in my memory. When I became a little older, this became one of my favorite movies, I have probably watched it almost 10 times and never get tired of it. I honestly get super pissed when someone calls it a terrible movie and a remake because they always just do it out of nostalgia and not because they care for examining the film critically. I watched the 1971 movie much later in life and I loved it too, so I never get why people have to always judge something by comparing it with an earlier adaptation. I think we should try to enjoy movies on their own and not have a kneejerk reaction to someone making another adaptation of the same story.