I normally ask a question but thought this might be a interesting chance too see if anyone had a question/s for me? Get 51% OFF any premium subscription with code: BLOCK www.worldanvil.com/?c=block
Honestly power rangers 2017 is pretty high up for me if not at the top because of how special that franchise was to me growing up. Other contenders are la la land, mama Mia 2, the court jester Also.a big part of "favorite" to me is rewatchability. Like recently I was enamored by civil war, but I also am like "that was rough don't want to watch that for a long time" Or how I think guardians of the galaxy 3 might be netter than 2, but 2 is more of a comfort movie with a tight script and is super rewatchable
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Haven't seen Power Ranger's 2017 yet. I'll have to check it out! I agree about rewatchability being a key factor. The first Iron Man is a obvious example for me.
@user-to6dp2gt7b yeah iron man is a great example. I want to do a video on lean scripts like top gun maverick iron man etc. Films that are super efficient and have that capital m movie feel
The wildest plot contrivance in this move is that, despite narrowly escaping drowning in a vat of chocolate, Wonka still decides having the giant chocolate river in his factory is a good idea. Maybe this would make more sense if they commited to the unsettling edge Wilder's version had, but it just doesn't mesh with Chalamet's iteration
But, counterpoint, because he nearly drowned, he knew it was a good way of getting rid of people. Also, the churning of the chocolate from the waterfall was a bonus.
What I loved about the first “you’ve never had chocolate like this” is Willy did not need to know what the other chocolate tasted like. He was so optimistic and confident with his product, that was all he needed to convey that his chocolate was the best.
While I still think from an exposition stand point it would help to know about the other chocolates; I very much like this explanation for wonka himself
My interpretation of Wonka is that he is a good, eccentric man who was driven into isolation by others’ greed (especially the corporate espionage of people stealing his ideas) - the darkness in Gene Wilder’s Wonka is because of decades of isolation and paranoia around other people, and in a way finding Charlie is him opening back up to the world - while testing people’s intentions to ensure his factory is safe. His eccentricities are genuine, but it’s also a mask he uses to protect himself and his factory.
This. We need more people to see your comment. It just feels as though people keep overlooking the fact that shady businessmen had drove him into solitude, and probably reminds him of the time he was almosed drowned in chocolate because of them.
I feel like the movie was written more to be a prequel to the book than the 1971 movie. Chalamet's performance bears far more resemblance to the excitable child-in-an-adult's-body of Dahl's original story than Wilder's shrewd, deadpan, "scary" version.
Yeah exactly, I don’t understand why they act like Chalamet’s performance is sacrilegious because Gene Wilder’s performance of Wonka is NOTHING like the book version. It was a book first and I feel like people should be able to make other adaptations of the book separate from the movie version.
The problem is, you can't use songs and iconography from the 1971 movie if you don't want it to be compared to it. The studio wants it both ways: use recognizable imagery from a beloved movie but then claim it is a separate thing that can't be compared. This is something the Johnny Depp one at least tried to pull off to make it more clear it was an adaptation of the book, not a movie reboot. Not doing that means you can only treat this as a prequel to Gene Wilder's version, and it looks much worse from the comparison.
The sudden transition to the greatest showman made me laugh way more than it should’ve I’m sorry but when I heard the WOOOOAAAAAHHH I was laughing sm 😭💀
Wonka 2 Plot: After their embarrassing loss against Willy Wonka, the Chocolate Cartel return and invoke revenge on Wonka by hiring The Unknown, an evil chocolate maker that lives inside Wonka’s walls and is stealing his recipes. Its now up to Wonka, Noodle, and his old buddies to capture The Unknown and finally settle the score with Cartel a final time!
I don’t think the fat jokes against the police guy were specifically supposed to be taken as “haha look he’s so fat” but more as “haha look how much he loves the chocolate from the cartel” atleast that’s how I saw it, I thought it was pretty funny
You can make him obsessed with chocolate without making the joke his body. Also everyone is obsessed with chocolate in this world so it's just a bad joke in general
I agree. I didn’t see it as “lol he’s FAAAAT!!!” and more of “lol he’s so corrupt he can’t even hide it anymore!” If he was just eating chocolate alllll the time yet skinny, it would not show you how damn much he was really in it and non stop bribed and eating it. Don’t act like eating chocolate non stop won’t make you fat. Hell, look at Augustus in the original film! He’s a fat boy because he eats a lot! Is that the joke??? No. But it causes him to uncontrollably guzzle Wonka’s chocolate stream which causes him to likely die horrifically in that tube/burned to death. Actions have consequences. Charlie and his deadbeat grandpa lucked out they didn’t get chopped up for stealing that drink and lucked out Wonka killed all the other kids.
Agreed, I don't think any character outside of himself in the Sweet Tooth song ever mentioned him being fat through the whole movie? Him gaining weight wasn't about fat jokes, but about his corruption and how quickly it started to pile up becoming a visible thing he could no longer hide and that was even weighting him down from properly doing his actual job. Fat jokes usually make me uncomfortable, I found this specific gag funny
@@TheWritersBlockOfficialThats the thing tho, it wasnt an attack on anyone. It was a joke about how a cop became so corrupt that he couldnt hide it anymore. Which brings him to justice in the end.
2:20 the thing I love about that scene is that the other actors are showing genuine fear, they didn’t know he was going to start saying/singing like that
I was fine with Wonka, the main problem for me is that it's technically a prequel. But I just dont see Tim's wonka becoming either Gene's nor Johnny's Wonka. The world feels to different too.
Guys the reason why Timothee Chalamet as a young Wonka is more whimsical compared to Gene Wilder’s is because after having his secret recipes stolen by the Chocolate Cartel and locking himself in the factory with no workers to talk to for twenty years is when he goes crazy. That’s why Timmy’s Wonka is more optimistic and hopeful to begin with. By the way, that wasn’t the real Slugworth in the original, he was a man named Mr Wilkinson who was pretending to be Slugworth as part of the test it’s literally mentioned in the original movie. Also the meaning of the Golden Ticket in the end isn’t that Wonka had to appreciate the people he had to share chocolate with. It’s that because throughout the movie Willy just aspired to be the best chocolatier and have the best chocolate store ever he had to learn that making chocolate is mainly about making people happy which he did as the movie progressed
I had nearly been confused by slugworth until I realized no one would have remembered him anymore except maybe his name, all the fake had to do was act smarmy and ask about acquiring the everlasting gobstopper.
@@s0ph053Except in the Wilder movie someone buys a Slugworth Sizzler, so he’s definitely around then, so if this movie is a prequel, that could be a problem. Should I be ashamed or impressed that I remember the name of the candy but couldn’t tell you what year I moved to my current state?
One plot I wanted in this movie was that wonka would adopt noodle. This could still continue on into the original movie with something like she moved away when she got older. But their relationship was so sweet to me and I wish they didn’t add the random sudden plot to noodles parents. Plus he would get to be a good parent to noodle like his mom was to him
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial dont forget willy is only in his early 20's in this film and i feel fdining ndoole's mum made a much more sense for a plot also willy was more like a brother to noodle or what they could of done was make willy and noodle siblings like noodle was wolly' long lost sibling or soemthing which would of been cute
I think part of why they didn't do that is they couldn't figure out how to have Wonka have a child that he doesn't pass his chocolate empire onto. Narratively I think it would have been really positive, it would have made me happier for sure, but because it's a prequel they were really limited in what they could do.
That’s how I felt when I watched the trailer for Wonka. In the 1971 ver. the outside world was dull and realistic except for in the candy shop and in Willy Wonkas factory. In Wonka nothing feels spectacular because everything is kooky. Plus the idea of making a backstory on a character that’s supposed to be mysterious just doesn’t work.
@@creedecriswell634But it is. Wonka's world has magnificent giant buildings housing the worlds greatest candy, machinery and technology beyond what we have now, small establishments like the place Wonka stays throughout the movie that still have elaborate machines and contraptions, and the Oompa Loompa's are somewhat(?) magical geniuses.
Willy Wonka is a faerie, right? Like... It fits too well. He's a mysterious, flashy figure who has a deadly playground full of obviously magical delights, divorced from morality but not outright evil, who lures children into his faeryland to test them against a series of trials aimed to target their personal flaws and failures. He oscilates between being a near-divine figure and a near-satanic one rapidly and seamlessly, in such a way as his real intentions are almost unintelligible, and can shift in an instant from a gentle figure singing about paradise and wonder to a terrifying horror ranting about fear and danger to a boat of screaming children... And he *loves* deals and contracts. He makes them all sign a contract before they enter, the terms of which are so arcane and elaborate that it is effectively them signing their lives over to his mercy. And yet despite the clear disregard he has for the safety of others, he doesn't actually kill anyone. His horrors are a sort of game, where death seems to be on the table but never really is. The goal is to terrify and awe rather than to actively harm. Look at Charlie's trial. He was lured into stealing food from the fae, and infamously bad idea. He was lured into stealing an everlasting gobstopper. Wonka can tell despite never seeing that Charlie has secretly stolen one and sees it as unforgivable despite it being no harm to him, really, because it is the simple act of stealing that bothers him. Charlie is stealing from the fae. And the moment Charlie proves he isn't willing to steal Wonka's property, Wonka instantly shifts to cheerful and affectionate. Willy Wonka is a faerie, I'm certain of it.
The slugworth in Willy wonka we see on screen isn’t the true Arthur slugworth. His name is Mr Wilkinson. Slugworth, Prognose, and ficklegruber are name dropped not only by wonka, but also the candy man in various scenes. I imagine that like wonka, the heads of these chocolate factories aren’t known more than their names.
Good video. I agree with a lot of what you said and it accurately summarizes my feelings on the movie as a whole. However, i would like to disagree with you on three main points. First, the similarities and differences with Timothee Wonka and Wilder Wonka. When I was intially watching the movie, I kept having this odd feeling of Timothee being so close to pulling off Wilder but not quite matching the energy. After a lot of reflection, ive determined that most of the issue comes less with Timothee's performance or the even the dialouge and much more so the directorial framing of what was being said. In the orignina Willy Wonka, the odd and off-color things Wonka said were framed non-chalantly. His weirdness was emphasized through by allowing the camera to see him the way that a real person would see him if they were interacting irl. In this new movie, most of the odd or off-color things said were focused on too much. It felt like the director was going "ohhh look how quirky and weird he is. Isnt that so much like Wilder". Which ruined the effect of the writing and performance. In that way, I think the strangeness, mystery, and intimidation of Wonka is lost. The second thing I'd disagree on is the subplots. Even though I agree some things were not properly implemented into the story (the other hotel servants). I would disagree with you on the idea that every subplot needs to comment on something or exist for a specified purpose. Many of the subplots in Wonka exist as comedic fodder for the movie. The chocolate cartel isnt a cartel because they want to make a statment about monopolization or illegal manufactoring. The chocolate cartel is a cartel because its a funny premise to make something as normal and wholesome as chocolate and turn it into a obsessed over substance that it would need a cartel. Which reflects Rahl Dahl's absurdist humor and specifically the obsession that people have over chocolate specifically in the world of Willy Wonka. Its a similar situation with the servents. They dont exist to comment on indentured servitude, but because it leans into the absurdist humor of several very well off, educated, and talented people working for the stupidest people in the movie. Again, i agree that the servents werent well integrated into the story, but i will defend the basis for their existance. Noodle is a slightly different story is that i think she is necessary. Because Wonka as a character is at his best when he's bouncing off someone else. And Noodle serves as a straight man to his chaotic humor. The third thing I would argue on is Willy's want versus his need. I agree on your anaylsis of his want, however, i would argue the point of his need is slightky different enough to create the diparity your talking about in the movie. Wonka's need is not that he "needs to appreciate those around him". His need is to learn how to evaluate himself through things other than his achievements. And one of the ways to do that is to learn to see yourself as others (like Noodle) see you. This aligns much closer with the actual character arc that takes place in the movie. He appreciates people, but he doesnt value himself through the lens of those he affects. Only by arbitrary standards he's created for himself. And by interacting and growing with the side charaters, he learns that his worth and value is not about being the best, its about making a difference with those who truky matter. His mother's "secret ingredient" for the chocolate perfectly shows this. The thing that made the chocolate good wasnt some arbitrary "best" ingredient, its that she took the time and effort to make it for her child.
The vibe I got in this movie from Wonka himself, is that he's in denial/overly optimistic about everything happening around him, like he's trying really hard to keep that inner child front and center, Then when bad things just keep happening he starts to wittle away until he does what he thinks is the responsible/grown up thing to do, which is to just submit to what the corporate chocolate guys want and leave, in order to keep noodle safe. Then ofc he changes his mind, probably realizing they could easily lie and not keep their promises, because they aren't as open and honest as he is. Thats what i took from it. He had his inner child front and center, learned he needed to be more responsible and make better decisions, and then made a decision using both his inner child and adult self. Though his mom, and her message at the end didn't make too much sense, unless you take it in the way of "You can share your chocolate with the world, but remember to share it with the ones closest to you first" Since its not possible for him to vonnect ith everyone who buys his chocolate on a deeper level, he needs to find a group of people.
To be fair as a retail employee. I have studied my customers and came to conclusions that they can’t read They either ask me to read something because “they forgot their glasses” Or if the package have changed but the word on the box are still the same they don’t understand that it the same product They also ask if this is x product and I have to point out the word on the box. Because of these points my colleague and I came to the conclusion that people can’t read and are too embarrassed to say so find a convoluted way of not reading it.
@@lucifersdevilishdetails. i mean forgetting ones glasses is pretty valid, especially when older and that tiny print gets you. I'm always helping customers out when I'm at the ski resort because they literally cannot read the small print, not because they are illiterate.
@@lucifersdevilishdetails.no, some labels do tend to change a lot. A change that for you might go unnoticed because you handle the product a lot. Some people are just lazy and sometimes, they rather you tell them. Instead of figuring it out. Im sure if someone wanted to nit pick our comment, they will find flaws with our grammar too. Doesn’t mean we are illiterate, or dumb, or anything in particular. Heck some people do it to be ‘better than thou’ they might ask “does it have glutton? I cont do that, or does it have meat? Thats a huge no no for me” literally just so they can virtue signal. In conclusion, don’t read too much into it lol not one human knows everything, lets be nice and help one another instead.
@@halakon666 Did you use "glutton" and "cont" on purpose? And it's wild that you think that people who avoid *gluten* are doing it to "virtue signal." Some of us get inflammatory reactions to the junk. I have to have a very restrictive diet due to *medical reasons* and people like you who think it's "virtue signalling" have made me ill enough to go to the hospital because they've outright lied to my face. Do what you preach and just give them what they want if they have to have a restrictive diet and keep your thoughts to yourself.
19:58 i thought noodle being the heir to slugworth chocolates sets up her being the moral test for charlie in the other film. that there would be a legit company who is secretly in cohoots with wonka.
You just hit the nail on the head for me at less than 9 minutes in! After watching the Wonka movie I was left perplexed on how Timothee Chalamet's Wonka became the one we see in the 'future', whichever adaptation of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory you prefer. I prefer Gene Wilder's myself but I did grow up with it. It was a fun movie to watch, don't get me wrong, but I was trying to figure out how they meant to explain this Wonka going forward and becoming the jaded, darker person Willy Wonka later became.
Commenting for engagement. I really am enjoying how thoughtful your commentary on this movie is. You are doing a great job explaining why the movie feels so empty.
Thank you so much. I've been really enjoying doing some deeper dives that are less about one distinct thesis and Moreso just a big discussion. It makes me really happy to know its connecting with people
The bit on the villain song is very interesring to me, i like to think the homage to "Everybody ought to have a maid" is on purpose as Matthew Baynton is kinda known for making comedic parodies (horrible histories). (I also don't mind the tempo but i think that might be becuase it's impossible for me to not have a good time while Baynton is in screen)
I think if this were the one slower song I wouldn't mind it but I just felt like it failed to distinguish itself. That being said, I love the villains performances here. I have issues with the script but the actors are all killing it
Wanka and Noodle definitely don’t go their separate ways at the end of the movie. They have a relationship obviously if this is a prequel to the 1971 movie then that’s how Wonka and slugworth are connected
@@lukehannah4554 you’re right I forgot. This is like when I forgot the twist of planet of the apes; I said some stupid shit about a new movie in that franchise back then too until I was corrected.
19:57 Actually, Slugworth _is_ a real person in the Willy Wonka universe and is _not_ Willy Wonka’s ally. Yes, he does exist alongside Fickelgruber and Prodnose. They had sent in spies to steal the recipes for Wonka’s candies in the adaptations that came before. The “Slugworth” you’re referring to in the 1961 movie was an actor hired by Wonka to put the winning kids up to the test to see if one of them would be rightful owner of Wonka’s chocolate factory.
The line where "He seems like he belongs in a Wes Anderson movie rather than a Roald Dahl adaptation" made me chuckle. Are you aware that Wes Anderson has directed five films based on Dahl's works? He did Fantastic Mr. Fox in 2009 and recently released an anthology on Netflix where he adapted four more short stories to film... The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, Swan, Rat Catcher, and Poison.
Your point about the necessity to expose children to the dangers of the real world through fiction is absolutely spot on. So many parents try to prevent their children from even knowing those dangers exist, and leave their children drastically unprepared for living in the real world once they grow up.
Great video. The one thing I'd disagree with is the purpose of the message on the back of the gold foil from his mother - I think her intention was slightly deeper: to let go of his attachment to her legacy and his desire to be the one person to hold that legacy.
I think that's a very valid interpretation that I actually like a lot. I just don't think if that's the case the movie itself delivered in that theme. Because willy never felt flawed.
Also thank you. Sorry was focused on responding to the body of your comment that I forgot to acknowledge how much I appreciate when people take the time to engage and discuss
I like the comments that discussed how Timonthee’s version was young and still discovering himself and the world. It makes sense that he does not become the sociopathic and mysterious version yet. He is still in his optimistic phase. I also like this movie as a reimagining because it becomes its own thing. I feel the homage to the original is just that. A homage to acknowledge that they recognize the original, but not trying to copy it. What I love about the music is what some love about Mary Poppins Returns. It pays homage to the classic/traditional musicals, but they are their own thing. While I do agree with your points about some of the writing and characterization, I feel there is much love and care with the making of it. And to me, that is better than the lame remakes that are only made for money and not art or entertainment.
A note to all who might come across this: Despite its flaws I have decided I rather enjoy Wonka. Is it a good musical? No. But its heart is in the right place and the music is enjoyable.
5:46 Haha, you made me remember a random thought I had when watching Wonka 2023. Timothy's character made a funny face at one point, and I went "Wow, that was a really great funny face, I feel like it would have been great to have more of those for this character. Maybe they should have made a movie where Willy Wonka is played by someone who can naturally do funny faces constantly, Johnny Depp maybe.... oh wait."
Your analysis always makes me want to go watch the film more closely - especially when your review is essentially "it could've been so much better". Not sure I can convince my friends to watch Wonka for a movie night though...
Wow this is super amazing to hear. I started doing this to help people see stories in a more analytical way. I think there's so much beauty and artistry in the mechanics of storytelling and hearing that these videos help people see that is so encouraging and meaningful. Thank you for the kind words
Another message in Willy that gets missed is one of accountability, as opposed to perfection. Charlie screws up and makes a decision as bad as any of the other children. The difference is that he takes accountability. While he doesn't do so in words, he doesn't contradict Willy, beg to keep the lifetime supply of chocolate, or offer any excuses or defenses but then he willingly surrenders the EL Gobstopper--which he was NOT asked to do. Many movie protagonists these days are portrayed as perfect just the way they are, and only need others to recognize it or get out of their way... but NO ONE is perfect. That's the beauty of Willy. It's cynical enough to know we're selfish, self-centered beings, but it's hopeful that some of us will rise above it. That's the essential nature of Willy in the movie. I don't see him as a con-man, but a man of contradictions. He is innocent, but he is also world-weary. He is generous, but is a capitalist. He is kind, but is callous. He is flawed and unworthy, but... this is why he is so joyous at the end. Charlie's selfless act doesn't just mark his own redemption, but Willy's, and it puts truth to his hope that goodness exists in the world and thus, in himself. Not only does this lend the character a strong sense of pathos, but it draws a nice parallel with Charlie.
to me this movie had the feel of a roald dahl book come to life. the kid, the whimsy, the way they talk and act. I loved it because of that but I will say it's a very different tone to the original movie.
If this make sense, I feel like this is a roald dahl book come to life, but not the Willy Wonka roald dahl book. It felt more akin the whimsy of James and the Giant peach than wonka, but I also recognize that's subjective
I must ask: are the Wicked clips here because Joel Grey was a favorite for Wonka back in the day? If so, well played If not, there's a fun fact! I adore your review because I personally didn't love it, but I couldn't put my finger on why. You've vocalized it perfectly.
Wonka was a pretty good movie, all it lacked was challenge. Sure, it had a conflict with the bribery, but I didn't really feel like the characters struggled to resolve the conflict. This really shows the strength of the Gene Wilder version because you do see Wonka's struggle to find an heir that has what it takes to succeed.
You really nailed this analysis. When watching this movie myself, I found it a fine enough movie to be enjoyable, but whenever they tried to make it...wonka-esk, it ended up just taking me out of the emersion somehow, and i couldnt really figure out why it felt that way. It felt like they were trying to shoehorn the wonka aspect of wonka in so much that it felt so out of place and looped right back around to being why it DIDNT feel like a movie made to be a wonka movie. It felt like a movie wearing wonkas clothing rather than a movie about wonka. Every wonka action felt like it either hit as funny, quirky or so jarringly "look how funny and quirky willy wonka is!" that it makes the movie feel like its trying too hard. That and this disjointedness of the story that i would look past in most musicals but feels confusing why they included them in a wonka movie when it doesnt really enhance the movie, it just sort of...happens. I feel like if it was trying to be a purely original story, there would be more focus on making the story have a proper theme and have their story decisions enhance the plot. It was a fine movie, enjoyable enough to watch, but it would have been better if it wasnt a wonka movie. Though....I doubt they'd make nearly as much money if that was the case, so it was probably never meant to be.
I honestly can’t tell if I love or hate this movie-love it for what it is (a sweet, harmless, nothing-burger take on Wonka) or hate it for what it says it is (a prequel to Gene Wilder’s Wonka). My personal head canon is that Willy slowly grows more savvy and cynical the longer he’s around Lofty, until he becomes the Wonka in the ‘71 movie.
100% honest, I love Cruella. I love love love taking established characters and putting them in alternate versions of their story. There was talk of a Cruella 2, so there was probably a plot to where the dog skinning comes into play, but I *was* a little offput that she takes them as her own. *And* to make it worse, I also loved Maleficent!
When you egnolaged how the first movie was made for kids while respecting their intelligence, it reminded me of Rhold Dahl- Then I remembered hes the author of the book! He clearly remembers what it felt like to be a kid, and reading his books makes me remember too ❤️
The reason Chalamet’s Wonka doesn’t have the same feeling of menace as Wilder’s is because he has not yet been exposed to the horrors of the Business World
Gene Wilder said he would not do the role unless they made the gag about him coming out with a cane limping, got it stuck in the sidewalk, and then fell into a cartwheel. He created that scene, because on his words, "from that moment on, no one would know when he was lying and when he was not". He made that role.
I was hoping to see at least one comment referencing Snowpiercer or the fan theory, but all I got was one Dune reference. Just imagine, though: a crossover between Willy Wonka, Dune, Snowpiercer and Infinity Train. _A young Wonka got mysteriously sent into a weird world, finds out it's within a massive and very long train that's continuously traveling in the middle of a desert. He somehow misses the point of the train and why he's in there, journeys through many cars and meeting fellow passengers along, and eventually reaches the engine which is unoccupied. The whole journey made him into a madman. He declares himself the Chosen One, The Messiah - "Muad'dib" as the more veteran passengers prophesized, and he now rules the entire train; he has the most numbers on him out of all the passengers of the train._
29:30 Okay, im someone who thinks Willy Wonka in every version is somewhere on the autism spectrum. They all show different signs that are common in the diagnoses such as not understanding social cues, having a fixation on one or more things(chocolate (+magic in chalamet's case)), and stims. (GW - messing with his cane and eating/sucking on sweets, JD - laughing and talking about candy, and TC - fidgeting with items and moving hands/fingers) While this is not a solid nor confurned theory, it leads me to believe that Timothée's gestures that seem awkward or awfully timed with no real effect on the story could be a nervous stim in new situations. Essentially, it was an improvised moment to do something with his hands to relieve anxiety or stress. (I am not a professional in any way, i do my own research and studying and have also based it off of personal experiences. WW is not confirmed autistic and likely will never be, this is a fun theory to add personal depth to a character, not a person.)
Honestly I really appreciate when adults don’t treat kids like incapable idiots, kids are perfectly capable and able to function on their own, so when they treat every minor like a 2 year old it really does hurt.
My idea of Wonka is that it is before he becomes Wilder's Wonka. Wilder's Wonka became what he is because he was betrayed by everyone he trusted. The Wonka in Wonka still trusts people. He hasn't been destroyed yet.
I liked how willy started off as confusing the people in the beginning to show that you can’t tell if he’s lying or not and then he goes to whimsy and then scary in the boat ride
for me, an important factor to consider is that WONKA sets place before the information wars, so he is still yet to gain that cynicism we see in Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory, meaning that the traits like whimsy and optimism are greatly magnified while the cunning and such are less developed, so i feel that it's somewhat unfair to compare those two interpretations of the character because of how they're set at different points in wonka's life, and as such are trying to magnify different aspects of the character
I'm so glad you said that about the 2005 one. I read the book before I saw the Gene Wilder version so it always sort of annoyed me. Everyone around me seemed to hate the Johnny Depp version, but to me it felt like watching the book actually being adapted.
I don't think I'd have made the connection on my own, wow you're right! The candy itself was just a bit too "magical" for me and I could see a wacky magical chocolatier with that machine in HP.
@@JordynAlyseP That’s what it was!! I couldn’t place a finger on why I felt so against watching it, and it was driving me crazy 😭 I’ve already seen a movie with that same aesthetic, and seeing it again with a different plot just isn’t refreshing or interesting. This isn’t Willy Wonka, but a discounted Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes, without the charm of Newt. Timothee makes me uncomfy
Both are made by Warner Bros and produced by David Heyman and I call “Wonka” the Paddington/ Fantastic Beasts era Willy Wonka movie and I call the Tim Burton adaptation the Harry Potter era Willy Wonka movie because it was made during the same time WB was making the Harry Potter Film Franchise
I believe that this movie is the Beginning of how Willy Wonka came to be and I believe that all the Wonka’s from all the movies are heirs to the chocolate factory and can move locations as in the Wonka heirs have the factory deed and can build a factory at a different location ( I don’t know how deeds work 🤷🏻♀️ so forgive me). As in Timothee’s Wonka is the first Wonka to ever lived because we see the factory being built in a abandoned castle (I haven’t watched the movie in a while so I don’t remember correctly) at the end of the movie. And the costume designs for the background characters are in the 17 or 1800s era (I might be completely wrong for the era of clothes), also if I remember correctly the chocolate factory is being built at a cliff edge and the other movies don’t have cliff. That can just be the first location of the chocolate factory and in the other movies are in the future of whatever time periods there in (I haven’t watched the other movies because I was born in 2007 but I think I watched the one with the Black bob cut Willy Wonka?) so in the future the Wonka heirs have their own location and runs their own factory. I hope you understand what I’m saying and how my brain works in explaining (I’m bad at explaining things)
10:22 you could argue that it makes sense since he's still young and naive. As for everything, in this movie he hasn't lived as much as willy wonka, he's still growing as a character
The plot of Wonka should have been : Wonka is back from his travels/training to fulfil his childhood dream of being a master chocolatier in his hometown just in time to find evil chocolate maker guys closed their manufacturing plants in 'Vague Chocolate Based Industrial Town' to use cheap outsourced and exploited labour(the oompa loompas in loompa land, which has been industrialized/colonized into a choclate manufacturing wasteland by the other choclatiers), the townsfolk have been pushed into poverty because there's no work etc, wonka purchases one of the old facilities for cheap, revitalizes the local economy with the skills all these people already have and his innovative recipes, people start selling his secret recipes, he is enraged and infuriated at what he perceives to be a slight against 'everything he did for them', fires them all and closes the factory, puts it up for sale, goes to his competitor with his hat in hand ready to sell all his recipes or whatever, discovers the oompa loompas being exploited and offers them better working conditions in his factory OR an oompa loompa hears about this master chocolatier and strikes a deal to a similar end, wonka goes back to 'Vague Chocolate Based Industrial Town' because it's not like he can afford a factory in Skyrocketing Colonized Chocolate Capital of The World Loompa Land with his new workforce who are both better compensated than they were in the competitors factories AND probably were treated badly enough there that they would never ever sell recipes to them, the factory reopens, the film ends with a scene where noodle (who has been there the whole time teaching him to read, doing the business end of the business and heisting rare ingredients, making his weird chocolates that he makes in his lab possible on large scales but shes practical and he's a artist to there's kind of a diametric opposition there, and was also fired his tragic downfall and isolation but that is not going to keep her down) is about to buy the chocolate factory to refit into a new business and wonka begs her not to with a reprise from an earlier song, she agrees and he''s like 'i never should have fired you come back' but she's a strong independent girlboss and there's plenty of old chocolate factories around here, and wonka's like 'you aren't going to open a chocolate factory are you?' (in a way that implies he will destroy her if she does) and she's like 'i've run the numbers and i'm going to open a toothpaste factory' and they part ways on good terms. This would have set everything up and made Wonka seem unhinged and unpredictable, but not entirely like a guy who couldn't be nice because he has sort of become what he hates but in contrasting his treatment of the oompa loompas to the other guys treatment of them he's like. maybe you could fix him. also would have helped with the fact the the Oompa Loompas are a very questionable story thing to begin with.
It really feels like everyone expects Wonka was a dark character from the start. The Wonka you see from Wilder is a whimsical man who has become a jaded man from betrayal after betrayal. The movie isn't supposed to be about him trusting more. It's the exact opposite. He is going to become less and less trusting until he shuts down his entire factory and outsources all the work to Oompa Loompa's while hiding in his factory alone for years.
I wish I personally could give you more views. You are amazing, and so knowledgable about literacy and media. TOP quality videos my friend thank you!!!
Willy wonka and the chocolate factory, same as Matilda and other movies in the 90s, were sort of a comfort to me as a child. Like many of my generation, I was basically raised by the TV, so saw lots of different stories and morals through stories in movies and TV. But it wasn't only entertaining and educational but reassuring as, in my situation, I was neglected and abused as a child so watching movies and stories about children with idiotic and/or openly harmful adults around them who basically learn to think for themselves, often by literally battling the adults around them to become better than the adults in their lives. I doubt I expressed that well, but that is part of these movies charms. It's children learning to think for themselves and explore the difference between children who copy their parents' teachings vrs those who challenge them. Or, even better, take the best parts of their parents teaching. Like Matilda literally stands up to her adult bullies, explored how not all adults are safe, trustworthy or worth obeying and she stands up for herself but yet also learns to accept influence from, while simultaneously positively influencing, a safe adult in Miss Honey. And in Willy wonka and the chocolate factory you've got Charlie, a poor child who's experienced neglect and abject poverty but still has experienced some love, within the context of their situation, and that's his normal state. Then as he goes on to explore the wonderfully fascinating chocolate factory where he can eat without worrying but he's also surrounded by examples of other children, who should be his peers but due to his poverty never feels like peers, who're corrupted by their parents to be self destructive. Leading to Charlie needing to decide who he is, what his values are, to think for himself within and despite the expectations of the adults who're trying to influence him. A lot of stories in the 80s, 90s and early 00s were heavily about childism and teaching children morals and values through contrasting child and adult mentalities and moralities.
I found Wonka a really enjoyable movie. Though if one were to have higher critical expectations of it, it would fall kinda short. I love Roald Dahl’s writing style because of how passionate it is. It is whimsical in an almost spontaneous overflowing way, with this dark, slightly disturbing undertone that is masked by the humorous manner in which he is depicting everything. It’s a style that carries over to his short stories for adults too, in fact it only gets more extreme and wildly imaginative in his stories for more mature readers. The Wonka movie was just pleasant all around, there wasn’t really anything that felt “off” about any situation to give it that unique edge the original stories had Someone in this comment section mentioned creating more dichotomy of a dull city and the magic and wonder Wonka brings to it. The Tim Burton movie captured that pretty well I think. I don’t really have any ideas on how to change the story itself (I actually found many of the ideas really charming and good), but visually I think it could have stood to be more striking and bold. Then again that’s a problem many films face nowadays, that ‘clean’ look
I liked wonka, the sheer absurdity of it was very fun for me, the fact that it’s this fun little cute story with songs about a small business man TOPPLING A FREAKIN COCOCAINE CARTEL AND DESTABILIZING A COCOCULT IS ABSOLUTE COMEDIC GOLD. Like every thing about it is so absurdly stupid it’s kinda charming to me, I don’t think it’s amazing but like, I mean, how can I not love a story about a chocolate drug cartel, the cococaine puns are to perfect, and the fact that the magic chocolate hallucinogens are just way to hilariously similar to spice in dune to not make me love it
Give me the first one with Gene. That version is just awesome. The dude was bumping off kids left and right and people LOVED it! I remember pointing this out to my father and for the first time in years of having seen the show, it was the FIRST time he ever saw it from that point of view. That's the power and depth of the first movie.
The tunnel scene was improvised. The fear in the other actors was legit. Wilder did a lot of things ad lib that kept everyone on their toes. They didn't know what he was going to do next, which is what allowed for the darker side of him to show in the way that it did.
The best part of the original movie is that the man Wonka is presented fully formed. We don't get and ultimately don't need his origin story. We simply take him as he is.
When i was watching this, it really felt like Nudle was just there because they needed an important black female main character. Admittedly she’s not as egregious as others of the type, but she was still bland, and weak as a character, I didn’t feel invested in her at all. (Take this with a grain of salt though, I’m the type that if the human characters just got blasted by Godzilla, or Kong just stepped on them, I genuinely wouldn’t care)
Maybe just old school block head but original movie was so appealing because of schadenfreude. My friends and I were actively rooting against the horrible kids so never felt sorry for them. If kids just behaved nothing bad would have happen to them. So I always say movie as cautionary tale and Wonka was never too mean in my eyes or scary. Not saying it was bad movie but the elements I loved about original were nonexistent.
9:42 you pronounced psudo-charleton correctly 29:22 he’s just trying to do jazz hands (flicker fingers if you’re a theater kid) while in an enclosed location
From what I've heard Gene Wilder when he took the role of Wonka wanted his character to be untrustworthy...that's why he wanted his entrance to be pretending to be feeble and falling but then turning that into a forward tumble roll and standing up with a wide smile and presentation. Gene WANTED that to be the moment you realized you couldn't exactly trust Wonka 100% and that on looking back at the movie it could be taken different ways...such as his remarks when bad things happen to the children seeming as if he's either A) uncaring at best or B) taking pleasure in their actions having such drastic payback for them.
Never seen Wonka myself but random whimsy might work if it's part of a growth arc into a showman. Maybe he starts out as a magician but that constantly fails him as he learns to become a convincing showman. The growth arc would have to show him using less and less random whimsy while creating a whimsical public persona that creates a lot of mystery.
I will say. I agreed to see Aquaman 2 with my mom the weekend before I saw Wanka. That movie was a godsend by comparison. Let's be real we are in a era where, at least mainstream, films have set a lower average bar than Wanka met
even though it seems like the movie Wonka is a prequal. i do not think it is not a prequal because there is a movie that was rumored or such to be a prequal you wont think is a prequal until you go into the lore. there is a video talking about that. for me i feel like Wonka is a separate universe. (i know this is not related to the video but i had to mention such possibly.) Wonka vs Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory is two different sides but take willy wonka in two different directions. that is why the movie i am going to mention is a sort of prequal to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory. the movie in question is Snowpiercer which i find interesting. the video i need to mention about that is made by Rhino Stew.
I normally ask a question but thought this might be a interesting chance too see if anyone had a question/s for me?
Get 51% OFF any premium subscription with code: BLOCK
www.worldanvil.com/?c=block
I have one. Do you have a favorite movie?
Honestly power rangers 2017 is pretty high up for me if not at the top because of how special that franchise was to me growing up. Other contenders are la la land, mama Mia 2, the court jester
Also.a big part of "favorite" to me is rewatchability. Like recently I was enamored by civil war, but I also am like "that was rough don't want to watch that for a long time"
Or how I think guardians of the galaxy 3 might be netter than 2, but 2 is more of a comfort movie with a tight script and is super rewatchable
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Haven't seen Power Ranger's 2017 yet. I'll have to check it out!
I agree about rewatchability being a key factor. The first Iron Man is a obvious example for me.
@user-to6dp2gt7b yeah iron man is a great example. I want to do a video on lean scripts like top gun maverick iron man etc. Films that are super efficient and have that capital m movie feel
Why do you love Wonderful from Wicked?
The wildest plot contrivance in this move is that, despite narrowly escaping drowning in a vat of chocolate, Wonka still decides having the giant chocolate river in his factory is a good idea. Maybe this would make more sense if they commited to the unsettling edge Wilder's version had, but it just doesn't mesh with Chalamet's iteration
What if.... he kind of like it
But, counterpoint, because he nearly drowned, he knew it was a good way of getting rid of people. Also, the churning of the chocolate from the waterfall was a bonus.
I kinda like it, it’s so absurdly stupid it’s charming and funny lol.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficialDamn, Wonka's kinky.
@@Night_Light9123 But again, thinking of it as a way to get rid of people makes more sense with the unsettling edge
"May thy caramel chip and shatter."
LMAOOO
May thy chocolate melt in your hands!
What I loved about the first “you’ve never had chocolate like this” is Willy did not need to know what the other chocolate tasted like. He was so optimistic and confident with his product, that was all he needed to convey that his chocolate was the best.
While I still think from an exposition stand point it would help to know about the other chocolates; I very much like this explanation for wonka himself
My interpretation of Wonka is that he is a good, eccentric man who was driven into isolation by others’ greed (especially the corporate espionage of people stealing his ideas) - the darkness in Gene Wilder’s Wonka is because of decades of isolation and paranoia around other people, and in a way finding Charlie is him opening back up to the world - while testing people’s intentions to ensure his factory is safe. His eccentricities are genuine, but it’s also a mask he uses to protect himself and his factory.
This.
We need more people to see your comment.
It just feels as though people keep overlooking the fact that shady businessmen had drove him into solitude, and probably reminds him of the time he was almosed drowned in chocolate because of them.
I feel like the movie was written more to be a prequel to the book than the 1971 movie. Chalamet's performance bears far more resemblance to the excitable child-in-an-adult's-body of Dahl's original story than Wilder's shrewd, deadpan, "scary" version.
nah it leans more to the 1971 film the director also said its a orequel to bith the book and 1971 film
Yeah exactly, I don’t understand why they act like Chalamet’s performance is sacrilegious because Gene Wilder’s performance of Wonka is NOTHING like the book version. It was a book first and I feel like people should be able to make other adaptations of the book separate from the movie version.
@@anava7030 the director himself said it was a prequel to both the book and the 1971 one film smh
@@anava7030mostly nostalgia, that was their first introduction to it and act like it's the original
The problem is, you can't use songs and iconography from the 1971 movie if you don't want it to be compared to it. The studio wants it both ways: use recognizable imagery from a beloved movie but then claim it is a separate thing that can't be compared. This is something the Johnny Depp one at least tried to pull off to make it more clear it was an adaptation of the book, not a movie reboot. Not doing that means you can only treat this as a prequel to Gene Wilder's version, and it looks much worse from the comparison.
The sudden transition to the greatest showman made me laugh way more than it should’ve I’m sorry but when I heard the WOOOOAAAAAHHH I was laughing sm 😭💀
I take pride in my simultaneously smooth but out of nowhere segues
My theory is that Wonka is a prequel to the Wily Wonka Experience. They both even have the name Wonka in both.
The Unknown needs a movie next!
@@Nikkishops247 i thought there was a movie being made based off of it
@@MozzarellaAndCheddaOh yeah, I forgot!
nah i disagree its prequel to gen wilder film the wonka expierince chaos happned a few month after the movie
Wonka 2 Plot:
After their embarrassing loss against Willy Wonka, the Chocolate Cartel return and invoke revenge on Wonka by hiring The Unknown, an evil chocolate maker that lives inside Wonka’s walls and is stealing his recipes. Its now up to Wonka, Noodle, and his old buddies to capture The Unknown and finally settle the score with Cartel a final time!
I don’t think the fat jokes against the police guy were specifically supposed to be taken as “haha look he’s so fat” but more as “haha look how much he loves the chocolate from the cartel” atleast that’s how I saw it, I thought it was pretty funny
You can make him obsessed with chocolate without making the joke his body. Also everyone is obsessed with chocolate in this world so it's just a bad joke in general
@@TheWritersBlockOfficialCan't make fun of diabetes so far jokes is the best route
I agree. I didn’t see it as “lol he’s FAAAAT!!!” and more of “lol he’s so corrupt he can’t even hide it anymore!” If he was just eating chocolate alllll the time yet skinny, it would not show you how damn much he was really in it and non stop bribed and eating it.
Don’t act like eating chocolate non stop won’t make you fat. Hell, look at Augustus in the original film! He’s a fat boy because he eats a lot! Is that the joke??? No. But it causes him to uncontrollably guzzle Wonka’s chocolate stream which causes him to likely die horrifically in that tube/burned to death. Actions have consequences. Charlie and his deadbeat grandpa lucked out they didn’t get chopped up for stealing that drink and lucked out Wonka killed all the other kids.
Agreed, I don't think any character outside of himself in the Sweet Tooth song ever mentioned him being fat through the whole movie?
Him gaining weight wasn't about fat jokes, but about his corruption and how quickly it started to pile up becoming a visible thing he could no longer hide and that was even weighting him down from properly doing his actual job.
Fat jokes usually make me uncomfortable, I found this specific gag funny
@@TheWritersBlockOfficialThats the thing tho, it wasnt an attack on anyone. It was a joke about how a cop became so corrupt that he couldnt hide it anymore. Which brings him to justice in the end.
2:20 the thing I love about that scene is that the other actors are showing genuine fear, they didn’t know he was going to start saying/singing like that
I was fine with Wonka, the main problem for me is that it's technically a prequel. But I just dont see Tim's wonka becoming either Gene's nor Johnny's Wonka. The world feels to different too.
Agreed
Way I see it he could become either, which could be a way to say they don't commit hard enough one way or the other
It felt more like the world of paddington
@i-v-i2836 this exactly! I loved the whimsy but it just felt like too much if a departure that would fit another character much better
I think he's meant to become the BOOK Wonka.
Guys the reason why Timothee Chalamet as a young Wonka is more whimsical compared to Gene Wilder’s is because after having his secret recipes stolen by the Chocolate Cartel and locking himself in the factory with no workers to talk to for twenty years is when he goes crazy. That’s why Timmy’s Wonka is more optimistic and hopeful to begin with. By the way, that wasn’t the real Slugworth in the original, he was a man named Mr Wilkinson who was pretending to be Slugworth as part of the test it’s literally mentioned in the original movie. Also the meaning of the Golden Ticket in the end isn’t that Wonka had to appreciate the people he had to share chocolate with. It’s that because throughout the movie Willy just aspired to be the best chocolatier and have the best chocolate store ever he had to learn that making chocolate is mainly about making people happy which he did as the movie progressed
My thoughts exactly!!!
This is a good explanation
I had nearly been confused by slugworth until I realized no one would have remembered him anymore except maybe his name, all the fake had to do was act smarmy and ask about acquiring the everlasting gobstopper.
Well said
@@s0ph053Except in the Wilder movie someone buys a Slugworth Sizzler, so he’s definitely around then, so if this movie is a prequel, that could be a problem.
Should I be ashamed or impressed that I remember the name of the candy but couldn’t tell you what year I moved to my current state?
One plot I wanted in this movie was that wonka would adopt noodle. This could still continue on into the original movie with something like she moved away when she got older. But their relationship was so sweet to me and I wish they didn’t add the random sudden plot to noodles parents. Plus he would get to be a good parent to noodle like his mom was to him
That would have been so sweet. I also think it would have been cute to see her sass lofty some but they never get to share a scene
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial dont forget willy is only in his early 20's in this film and i feel fdining ndoole's mum made a much more sense for a plot also willy was more like a brother to noodle or what they could of done was make willy and noodle siblings like noodle was wolly' long lost sibling or soemthing which would of been cute
I would remove her from the movie all together.
I think part of why they didn't do that is they couldn't figure out how to have Wonka have a child that he doesn't pass his chocolate empire onto. Narratively I think it would have been really positive, it would have made me happier for sure, but because it's a prequel they were really limited in what they could do.
Noodle??
Main problem is that this movie was too whimsical. The world is already magical so wonka didn't really add anything new
Thats a great point. I think it would work better if he was like Mary pooping coming in and adding magic to a dull world
Noticed the auto correct but too funny not to leave as is
But it’s not
That’s how I felt when I watched the trailer for Wonka. In the 1971 ver. the outside world was dull and realistic except for in the candy shop and in Willy Wonkas factory. In Wonka nothing feels spectacular because everything is kooky. Plus the idea of making a backstory on a character that’s supposed to be mysterious just doesn’t work.
@@creedecriswell634But it is.
Wonka's world has magnificent giant buildings housing the worlds greatest candy, machinery and technology beyond what we have now, small establishments like the place Wonka stays throughout the movie that still have elaborate machines and contraptions, and the Oompa Loompa's are somewhat(?) magical geniuses.
Commenting purely because the Wonka Wonka (Waka Waka) joke is that fucking funny lmfao
Hah thank you!
Willy Wonka is a faerie, right? Like... It fits too well.
He's a mysterious, flashy figure who has a deadly playground full of obviously magical delights, divorced from morality but not outright evil, who lures children into his faeryland to test them against a series of trials aimed to target their personal flaws and failures. He oscilates between being a near-divine figure and a near-satanic one rapidly and seamlessly, in such a way as his real intentions are almost unintelligible, and can shift in an instant from a gentle figure singing about paradise and wonder to a terrifying horror ranting about fear and danger to a boat of screaming children...
And he *loves* deals and contracts. He makes them all sign a contract before they enter, the terms of which are so arcane and elaborate that it is effectively them signing their lives over to his mercy.
And yet despite the clear disregard he has for the safety of others, he doesn't actually kill anyone. His horrors are a sort of game, where death seems to be on the table but never really is. The goal is to terrify and awe rather than to actively harm.
Look at Charlie's trial. He was lured into stealing food from the fae, and infamously bad idea. He was lured into stealing an everlasting gobstopper. Wonka can tell despite never seeing that Charlie has secretly stolen one and sees it as unforgivable despite it being no harm to him, really, because it is the simple act of stealing that bothers him. Charlie is stealing from the fae. And the moment Charlie proves he isn't willing to steal Wonka's property, Wonka instantly shifts to cheerful and affectionate.
Willy Wonka is a faerie, I'm certain of it.
The slugworth in Willy wonka we see on screen isn’t the true Arthur slugworth. His name is Mr Wilkinson. Slugworth, Prognose, and ficklegruber are name dropped not only by wonka, but also the candy man in various scenes. I imagine that like wonka, the heads of these chocolate factories aren’t known more than their names.
Thought it was Oscar Slugworth. It wasn’t?
@@acgearsandarms1343 He speaks with a German accent, so he says “Arzhur Slugworth” but if could be Oscar. I’ll have to rewatch.
So in summation, your opinion on the new Wonka movie is “not mad, just disappointed”
Somethin like that
Good video. I agree with a lot of what you said and it accurately summarizes my feelings on the movie as a whole. However, i would like to disagree with you on three main points.
First, the similarities and differences with Timothee Wonka and Wilder Wonka. When I was intially watching the movie, I kept having this odd feeling of Timothee being so close to pulling off Wilder but not quite matching the energy. After a lot of reflection, ive determined that most of the issue comes less with Timothee's performance or the even the dialouge and much more so the directorial framing of what was being said. In the orignina Willy Wonka, the odd and off-color things Wonka said were framed non-chalantly. His weirdness was emphasized through by allowing the camera to see him the way that a real person would see him if they were interacting irl. In this new movie, most of the odd or off-color things said were focused on too much. It felt like the director was going "ohhh look how quirky and weird he is. Isnt that so much like Wilder". Which ruined the effect of the writing and performance. In that way, I think the strangeness, mystery, and intimidation of Wonka is lost.
The second thing I'd disagree on is the subplots. Even though I agree some things were not properly implemented into the story (the other hotel servants). I would disagree with you on the idea that every subplot needs to comment on something or exist for a specified purpose. Many of the subplots in Wonka exist as comedic fodder for the movie. The chocolate cartel isnt a cartel because they want to make a statment about monopolization or illegal manufactoring. The chocolate cartel is a cartel because its a funny premise to make something as normal and wholesome as chocolate and turn it into a obsessed over substance that it would need a cartel. Which reflects Rahl Dahl's absurdist humor and specifically the obsession that people have over chocolate specifically in the world of Willy Wonka. Its a similar situation with the servents. They dont exist to comment on indentured servitude, but because it leans into the absurdist humor of several very well off, educated, and talented people working for the stupidest people in the movie. Again, i agree that the servents werent well integrated into the story, but i will defend the basis for their existance.
Noodle is a slightly different story is that i think she is necessary. Because Wonka as a character is at his best when he's bouncing off someone else. And Noodle serves as a straight man to his chaotic humor.
The third thing I would argue on is Willy's want versus his need. I agree on your anaylsis of his want, however, i would argue the point of his need is slightky different enough to create the diparity your talking about in the movie. Wonka's need is not that he "needs to appreciate those around him". His need is to learn how to evaluate himself through things other than his achievements. And one of the ways to do that is to learn to see yourself as others (like Noodle) see you. This aligns much closer with the actual character arc that takes place in the movie. He appreciates people, but he doesnt value himself through the lens of those he affects. Only by arbitrary standards he's created for himself. And by interacting and growing with the side charaters, he learns that his worth and value is not about being the best, its about making a difference with those who truky matter. His mother's "secret ingredient" for the chocolate perfectly shows this. The thing that made the chocolate good wasnt some arbitrary "best" ingredient, its that she took the time and effort to make it for her child.
The vibe I got in this movie from Wonka himself, is that he's in denial/overly optimistic about everything happening around him, like he's trying really hard to keep that inner child front and center, Then when bad things just keep happening he starts to wittle away until he does what he thinks is the responsible/grown up thing to do, which is to just submit to what the corporate chocolate guys want and leave, in order to keep noodle safe. Then ofc he changes his mind, probably realizing they could easily lie and not keep their promises, because they aren't as open and honest as he is. Thats what i took from it. He had his inner child front and center, learned he needed to be more responsible and make better decisions, and then made a decision using both his inner child and adult self. Though his mom, and her message at the end didn't make too much sense, unless you take it in the way of "You can share your chocolate with the world, but remember to share it with the ones closest to you first" Since its not possible for him to vonnect ith everyone who buys his chocolate on a deeper level, he needs to find a group of people.
"You've never had chocolate?!" And you're a grown man who cannot read, Wonka. Something far weirder to me. Glass houses.
To be fair as a retail employee. I have studied my customers and came to conclusions that they can’t read
They either ask me to read something because “they forgot their glasses”
Or if the package have changed but the word on the box are still the same they don’t understand that it the same product
They also ask if this is x product and I have to point out the word on the box.
Because of these points my colleague and I came to the conclusion that people can’t read and are too embarrassed to say so find a convoluted way of not reading it.
@@lucifersdevilishdetails. i mean forgetting ones glasses is pretty valid, especially when older and that tiny print gets you. I'm always helping customers out when I'm at the ski resort because they literally cannot read the small print, not because they are illiterate.
@@lucifersdevilishdetails.no, some labels do tend to change a lot. A change that for you might go unnoticed because you handle the product a lot. Some people are just lazy and sometimes, they rather you tell them. Instead of figuring it out. Im sure if someone wanted to nit pick our comment, they will find flaws with our grammar too. Doesn’t mean we are illiterate, or dumb, or anything in particular. Heck some people do it to be ‘better than thou’ they might ask “does it have glutton? I cont do that, or does it have meat? Thats a huge no no for me” literally just so they can virtue signal. In conclusion, don’t read too much into it lol not one human knows everything, lets be nice and help one another instead.
@@halakon666 Did you use "glutton" and "cont" on purpose? And it's wild that you think that people who avoid *gluten* are doing it to "virtue signal." Some of us get inflammatory reactions to the junk. I have to have a very restrictive diet due to *medical reasons* and people like you who think it's "virtue signalling" have made me ill enough to go to the hospital because they've outright lied to my face. Do what you preach and just give them what they want if they have to have a restrictive diet and keep your thoughts to yourself.
...you can't buy the ability to read at any corner store
19:58 i thought noodle being the heir to slugworth chocolates sets up her being the moral test for charlie in the other film. that there would be a legit company who is secretly in cohoots with wonka.
You just hit the nail on the head for me at less than 9 minutes in! After watching the Wonka movie I was left perplexed on how Timothee Chalamet's Wonka became the one we see in the 'future', whichever adaptation of the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory you prefer. I prefer Gene Wilder's myself but I did grow up with it. It was a fun movie to watch, don't get me wrong, but I was trying to figure out how they meant to explain this Wonka going forward and becoming the jaded, darker person Willy Wonka later became.
Commenting for engagement. I really am enjoying how thoughtful your commentary on this movie is. You are doing a great job explaining why the movie feels so empty.
Thank you so much. I've been really enjoying doing some deeper dives that are less about one distinct thesis and Moreso just a big discussion. It makes me really happy to know its connecting with people
That Tunnel Scene/Hotel California mashup goes way too hard,
Good Job!
The bit on the villain song is very interesring to me, i like to think the homage to "Everybody ought to have a maid" is on purpose as Matthew Baynton is kinda known for making comedic parodies (horrible histories). (I also don't mind the tempo but i think that might be becuase it's impossible for me to not have a good time while Baynton is in screen)
I think if this were the one slower song I wouldn't mind it but I just felt like it failed to distinguish itself. That being said, I love the villains performances here. I have issues with the script but the actors are all killing it
Thanks!
Hey thank you so much for your support. It means a lot!
Wanka and Noodle definitely don’t go their separate ways at the end of the movie. They have a relationship obviously if this is a prequel to the 1971 movie then that’s how Wonka and slugworth are connected
Slugworth wasn’t in the original it was a man pretending to be him named Mr Wilkinson
@@lukehannah4554 you’re right I forgot. This is like when I forgot the twist of planet of the apes; I said some stupid shit about a new movie in that franchise back then too until I was corrected.
19:57 Actually, Slugworth _is_ a real person in the Willy Wonka universe and is _not_ Willy Wonka’s ally.
Yes, he does exist alongside Fickelgruber and Prodnose. They had sent in spies to steal the recipes for Wonka’s candies in the adaptations that came before.
The “Slugworth” you’re referring to in the 1961 movie was an actor hired by Wonka to put the winning kids up to the test to see if one of them would be rightful owner of Wonka’s chocolate factory.
The line where "He seems like he belongs in a Wes Anderson movie rather than a Roald Dahl adaptation" made me chuckle. Are you aware that Wes Anderson has directed five films based on Dahl's works? He did Fantastic Mr. Fox in 2009 and recently released an anthology on Netflix where he adapted four more short stories to film... The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, Swan, Rat Catcher, and Poison.
Your point about the necessity to expose children to the dangers of the real world through fiction is absolutely spot on. So many parents try to prevent their children from even knowing those dangers exist, and leave their children drastically unprepared for living in the real world once they grow up.
Great video. The one thing I'd disagree with is the purpose of the message on the back of the gold foil from his mother - I think her intention was slightly deeper: to let go of his attachment to her legacy and his desire to be the one person to hold that legacy.
I think that's a very valid interpretation that I actually like a lot. I just don't think if that's the case the movie itself delivered in that theme. Because willy never felt flawed.
Also thank you. Sorry was focused on responding to the body of your comment that I forgot to acknowledge how much I appreciate when people take the time to engage and discuss
I like the comments that discussed how Timonthee’s version was young and still discovering himself and the world. It makes sense that he does not become the sociopathic and mysterious version yet. He is still in his optimistic phase.
I also like this movie as a reimagining because it becomes its own thing. I feel the homage to the original is just that. A homage to acknowledge that they recognize the original, but not trying to copy it.
What I love about the music is what some love about Mary Poppins Returns. It pays homage to the classic/traditional musicals, but they are their own thing.
While I do agree with your points about some of the writing and characterization, I feel there is much love and care with the making of it. And to me, that is better than the lame remakes that are only made for money and not art or entertainment.
A note to all who might come across this: Despite its flaws I have decided I rather enjoy Wonka. Is it a good musical? No. But its heart is in the right place and the music is enjoyable.
5:46 Haha, you made me remember a random thought I had when watching Wonka 2023. Timothy's character made a funny face at one point, and I went "Wow, that was a really great funny face, I feel like it would have been great to have more of those for this character. Maybe they should have made a movie where Willy Wonka is played by someone who can naturally do funny faces constantly, Johnny Depp maybe.... oh wait."
I’m gonna give some props to Timmy Chalamet here, I bought him as a young wonka and his singing voice is actually pretty descent
Your analysis always makes me want to go watch the film more closely - especially when your review is essentially "it could've been so much better". Not sure I can convince my friends to watch Wonka for a movie night though...
Wow this is super amazing to hear. I started doing this to help people see stories in a more analytical way. I think there's so much beauty and artistry in the mechanics of storytelling and hearing that these videos help people see that is so encouraging and meaningful. Thank you for the kind words
I kinda like that he trusting
As that show how much his employees broke him when they sold his secrets.
That's a great point
Another message in Willy that gets missed is one of accountability, as opposed to perfection. Charlie screws up and makes a decision as bad as any of the other children. The difference is that he takes accountability. While he doesn't do so in words, he doesn't contradict Willy, beg to keep the lifetime supply of chocolate, or offer any excuses or defenses but then he willingly surrenders the EL Gobstopper--which he was NOT asked to do. Many movie protagonists these days are portrayed as perfect just the way they are, and only need others to recognize it or get out of their way... but NO ONE is perfect. That's the beauty of Willy. It's cynical enough to know we're selfish, self-centered beings, but it's hopeful that some of us will rise above it.
That's the essential nature of Willy in the movie. I don't see him as a con-man, but a man of contradictions. He is innocent, but he is also world-weary. He is generous, but is a capitalist. He is kind, but is callous. He is flawed and unworthy, but... this is why he is so joyous at the end. Charlie's selfless act doesn't just mark his own redemption, but Willy's, and it puts truth to his hope that goodness exists in the world and thus, in himself. Not only does this lend the character a strong sense of pathos, but it draws a nice parallel with Charlie.
A Wes Anderson Wonka movie would have been amazing
Right?!
to me this movie had the feel of a roald dahl book come to life. the kid, the whimsy, the way they talk and act. I loved it because of that but I will say it's a very different tone to the original movie.
If this make sense, I feel like this is a roald dahl book come to life, but not the Willy Wonka roald dahl book. It felt more akin the whimsy of James and the Giant peach than wonka, but I also recognize that's subjective
I must ask: are the Wicked clips here because Joel Grey was a favorite for Wonka back in the day? If so, well played
If not, there's a fun fact! I adore your review because I personally didn't love it, but I couldn't put my finger on why. You've vocalized it perfectly.
Total coincidence there so thank you for the fun fact! And glad I could help put words to what you were Feeling
Wonka was a pretty good movie, all it lacked was challenge. Sure, it had a conflict with the bribery, but I didn't really feel like the characters struggled to resolve the conflict. This really shows the strength of the Gene Wilder version because you do see Wonka's struggle to find an heir that has what it takes to succeed.
POWER RANGERS MENTIONED, WHAT IS A NORMAL ANTAGONIST ????
You really nailed this analysis. When watching this movie myself, I found it a fine enough movie to be enjoyable, but whenever they tried to make it...wonka-esk, it ended up just taking me out of the emersion somehow, and i couldnt really figure out why it felt that way. It felt like they were trying to shoehorn the wonka aspect of wonka in so much that it felt so out of place and looped right back around to being why it DIDNT feel like a movie made to be a wonka movie. It felt like a movie wearing wonkas clothing rather than a movie about wonka. Every wonka action felt like it either hit as funny, quirky or so jarringly "look how funny and quirky willy wonka is!" that it makes the movie feel like its trying too hard. That and this disjointedness of the story that i would look past in most musicals but feels confusing why they included them in a wonka movie when it doesnt really enhance the movie, it just sort of...happens. I feel like if it was trying to be a purely original story, there would be more focus on making the story have a proper theme and have their story decisions enhance the plot. It was a fine movie, enjoyable enough to watch, but it would have been better if it wasnt a wonka movie. Though....I doubt they'd make nearly as much money if that was the case, so it was probably never meant to be.
I headcanon the wonka movie as the story he tells kids when they ask how he became a chocolatier
I honestly can’t tell if I love or hate this movie-love it for what it is (a sweet, harmless, nothing-burger take on Wonka) or hate it for what it says it is (a prequel to Gene Wilder’s Wonka). My personal head canon is that Willy slowly grows more savvy and cynical the longer he’s around Lofty, until he becomes the Wonka in the ‘71 movie.
About the finger thing - it’s because they’re spirit fingers. We’re not talking about cheerleaders. Broadway says jazz hands to me.
Captain Depp as Jack Sparrow was... That's quality.
100% honest, I love Cruella. I love love love taking established characters and putting them in alternate versions of their story.
There was talk of a Cruella 2, so there was probably a plot to where the dog skinning comes into play, but I *was* a little offput that she takes them as her own.
*And* to make it worse, I also loved Maleficent!
Just to be clear maleficent is actually really good.
When you egnolaged how the first movie was made for kids while respecting their intelligence, it reminded me of Rhold Dahl- Then I remembered hes the author of the book! He clearly remembers what it felt like to be a kid, and reading his books makes me remember too ❤️
The reason Chalamet’s Wonka doesn’t have the same feeling of menace as Wilder’s is because he has not yet been exposed to the horrors of the Business World
“the movie should end on a high note and timothee chalamet just can’t hit those” DAMN
Gene Wilder said he would not do the role unless they made the gag about him coming out with a cane limping, got it stuck in the sidewalk, and then fell into a cartwheel.
He created that scene, because on his words, "from that moment on, no one would know when he was lying and when he was not".
He made that role.
I was hoping to see at least one comment referencing Snowpiercer or the fan theory, but all I got was one Dune reference.
Just imagine, though: a crossover between Willy Wonka, Dune, Snowpiercer and Infinity Train.
_A young Wonka got mysteriously sent into a weird world, finds out it's within a massive and very long train that's continuously traveling in the middle of a desert. He somehow misses the point of the train and why he's in there, journeys through many cars and meeting fellow passengers along, and eventually reaches the engine which is unoccupied. The whole journey made him into a madman. He declares himself the Chosen One, The Messiah - "Muad'dib" as the more veteran passengers prophesized, and he now rules the entire train; he has the most numbers on him out of all the passengers of the train._
I feel like I'm trapped in some prison realm where I was the only person who saw how awful the latest Wonka movie was.
gene's version of WW can be summed up in one sentence "he is a god dammed ArchFae and the Factory is his Court"
29:30
Okay, im someone who thinks Willy Wonka in every version is somewhere on the autism spectrum. They all show different signs that are common in the diagnoses such as not understanding social cues, having a fixation on one or more things(chocolate (+magic in chalamet's case)), and stims. (GW - messing with his cane and eating/sucking on sweets, JD - laughing and talking about candy, and TC - fidgeting with items and moving hands/fingers)
While this is not a solid nor confurned theory, it leads me to believe that Timothée's gestures that seem awkward or awfully timed with no real effect on the story could be a nervous stim in new situations.
Essentially, it was an improvised moment to do something with his hands to relieve anxiety or stress.
(I am not a professional in any way, i do my own research and studying and have also based it off of personal experiences. WW is not confirmed autistic and likely will never be, this is a fun theory to add personal depth to a character, not a person.)
Honestly I really appreciate when adults don’t treat kids like incapable idiots, kids are perfectly capable and able to function on their own, so when they treat every minor like a 2 year old it really does hurt.
My idea of Wonka is that it is before he becomes Wilder's Wonka. Wilder's Wonka became what he is because he was betrayed by everyone he trusted. The Wonka in Wonka still trusts people. He hasn't been destroyed yet.
"On a less serious note, let's talk about police corruption." Another banger vid, Dylan!
Ahaha I'm so glad that line landed. Thank you so much for the kind words!
I liked how willy started off as confusing the people in the beginning to show that you can’t tell if he’s lying or not and then he goes to whimsy and then scary in the boat ride
for me, an important factor to consider is that WONKA sets place before the information wars, so he is still yet to gain that cynicism we see in Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory, meaning that the traits like whimsy and optimism are greatly magnified while the cunning and such are less developed, so i feel that it's somewhat unfair to compare those two interpretations of the character because of how they're set at different points in wonka's life, and as such are trying to magnify different aspects of the character
Wonka was one of the early examples of an actor understanding the character more than the writers
I'm so glad you said that about the 2005 one. I read the book before I saw the Gene Wilder version so it always sort of annoyed me. Everyone around me seemed to hate the Johnny Depp version, but to me it felt like watching the book actually being adapted.
I truly believe they were trying create a Harry Potter like movie. This is way more Wizarding World than Wonka. Which turned me away from it
I don't think I'd have made the connection on my own, wow you're right! The candy itself was just a bit too "magical" for me and I could see a wacky magical chocolatier with that machine in HP.
All I could think while watching this was that Willy was trying too hard to be Newt Scamander
@@JordynAlyseP That’s what it was!! I couldn’t place a finger on why I felt so against watching it, and it was driving me crazy 😭 I’ve already seen a movie with that same aesthetic, and seeing it again with a different plot just isn’t refreshing or interesting. This isn’t Willy Wonka, but a discounted Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes, without the charm of Newt. Timothee makes me uncomfy
Both are made by Warner Bros and produced by David Heyman and I call “Wonka” the Paddington/ Fantastic Beasts era Willy Wonka movie and I call the Tim Burton adaptation the Harry Potter era Willy Wonka movie because it was made during the same time WB was making the Harry Potter Film Franchise
I believe that this movie is the Beginning of how Willy Wonka came to be and I believe that all the Wonka’s from all the movies are heirs to the chocolate factory and can move locations as in the Wonka heirs have the factory deed and can build a factory at a different location ( I don’t know how deeds work 🤷🏻♀️ so forgive me). As in Timothee’s Wonka is the first Wonka to ever lived because we see the factory being built in a abandoned castle (I haven’t watched the movie in a while so I don’t remember correctly) at the end of the movie. And the costume designs for the background characters are in the 17 or 1800s era (I might be completely wrong for the era of clothes), also if I remember correctly the chocolate factory is being built at a cliff edge and the other movies don’t have cliff. That can just be the first location of the chocolate factory and in the other movies are in the future of whatever time periods there in (I haven’t watched the other movies because I was born in 2007 but I think I watched the one with the Black bob cut Willy Wonka?) so in the future the Wonka heirs have their own location and runs their own factory.
I hope you understand what I’m saying and how my brain works in explaining (I’m bad at explaining things)
The hand thing looked like jazz hands to symbolize broadway
10:22 you could argue that it makes sense since he's still young and naive. As for everything, in this movie he hasn't lived as much as willy wonka, he's still growing as a character
The Wonka Wonka joke was insane
It was between that and a fozzy bear reference
The plot of Wonka should have been :
Wonka is back from his travels/training to fulfil his childhood dream of being a master chocolatier in his hometown just in time to find evil chocolate maker guys closed their manufacturing plants in 'Vague Chocolate Based Industrial Town' to use cheap outsourced and exploited labour(the oompa loompas in loompa land, which has been industrialized/colonized into a choclate manufacturing wasteland by the other choclatiers), the townsfolk have been pushed into poverty because there's no work etc, wonka purchases one of the old facilities for cheap, revitalizes the local economy with the skills all these people already have and his innovative recipes, people start selling his secret recipes, he is enraged and infuriated at what he perceives to be a slight against 'everything he did for them', fires them all and closes the factory, puts it up for sale, goes to his competitor with his hat in hand ready to sell all his recipes or whatever, discovers the oompa loompas being exploited and offers them better working conditions in his factory OR an oompa loompa hears about this master chocolatier and strikes a deal to a similar end, wonka goes back to 'Vague Chocolate Based Industrial Town' because it's not like he can afford a factory in Skyrocketing Colonized Chocolate Capital of The World Loompa Land with his new workforce who are both better compensated than they were in the competitors factories AND probably were treated badly enough there that they would never ever sell recipes to them, the factory reopens, the film ends with a scene where noodle (who has been there the whole time teaching him to read, doing the business end of the business and heisting rare ingredients, making his weird chocolates that he makes in his lab possible on large scales but shes practical and he's a artist to there's kind of a diametric opposition there, and was also fired his tragic downfall and isolation but that is not going to keep her down) is about to buy the chocolate factory to refit into a new business and wonka begs her not to with a reprise from an earlier song, she agrees and he''s like 'i never should have fired you come back' but she's a strong independent girlboss and there's plenty of old chocolate factories around here, and wonka's like 'you aren't going to open a chocolate factory are you?' (in a way that implies he will destroy her if she does) and she's like 'i've run the numbers and i'm going to open a toothpaste factory' and they part ways on good terms.
This would have set everything up and made Wonka seem unhinged and unpredictable, but not entirely like a guy who couldn't be nice because he has sort of become what he hates but in contrasting his treatment of the oompa loompas to the other guys treatment of them he's like. maybe you could fix him. also would have helped with the fact the the Oompa Loompas are a very questionable story thing to begin with.
what i dont understand is why they cast people who cant sing in a MUSICAL
It really feels like everyone expects Wonka was a dark character from the start. The Wonka you see from Wilder is a whimsical man who has become a jaded man from betrayal after betrayal. The movie isn't supposed to be about him trusting more. It's the exact opposite. He is going to become less and less trusting until he shuts down his entire factory and outsources all the work to Oompa Loompa's while hiding in his factory alone for years.
I wish I personally could give you more views. You are amazing, and so knowledgable about literacy and media. TOP quality videos my friend thank you!!!
Thank you so much! That means a lot. I'll try to keep it up
Willy wonka and the chocolate factory, same as Matilda and other movies in the 90s, were sort of a comfort to me as a child. Like many of my generation, I was basically raised by the TV, so saw lots of different stories and morals through stories in movies and TV. But it wasn't only entertaining and educational but reassuring as, in my situation, I was neglected and abused as a child so watching movies and stories about children with idiotic and/or openly harmful adults around them who basically learn to think for themselves, often by literally battling the adults around them to become better than the adults in their lives. I doubt I expressed that well, but that is part of these movies charms. It's children learning to think for themselves and explore the difference between children who copy their parents' teachings vrs those who challenge them. Or, even better, take the best parts of their parents teaching.
Like Matilda literally stands up to her adult bullies, explored how not all adults are safe, trustworthy or worth obeying and she stands up for herself but yet also learns to accept influence from, while simultaneously positively influencing, a safe adult in Miss Honey.
And in Willy wonka and the chocolate factory you've got Charlie, a poor child who's experienced neglect and abject poverty but still has experienced some love, within the context of their situation, and that's his normal state. Then as he goes on to explore the wonderfully fascinating chocolate factory where he can eat without worrying but he's also surrounded by examples of other children, who should be his peers but due to his poverty never feels like peers, who're corrupted by their parents to be self destructive. Leading to Charlie needing to decide who he is, what his values are, to think for himself within and despite the expectations of the adults who're trying to influence him.
A lot of stories in the 80s, 90s and early 00s were heavily about childism and teaching children morals and values through contrasting child and adult mentalities and moralities.
5:17 Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly in The Babbitt and the Bromide 1945! Wasn’t expecting to see them here, haha! ❤
Bonus points for being the first one to name em!
Thank you for confirming, I was having trouble pausing to get a good look at their faces.
I found Wonka a really enjoyable movie. Though if one were to have higher critical expectations of it, it would fall kinda short.
I love Roald Dahl’s writing style because of how passionate it is. It is whimsical in an almost spontaneous overflowing way, with this dark, slightly disturbing undertone that is masked by the humorous manner in which he is depicting everything. It’s a style that carries over to his short stories for adults too, in fact it only gets more extreme and wildly imaginative in his stories for more mature readers.
The Wonka movie was just pleasant all around, there wasn’t really anything that felt “off” about any situation to give it that unique edge the original stories had
Someone in this comment section mentioned creating more dichotomy of a dull city and the magic and wonder Wonka brings to it. The Tim Burton movie captured that pretty well I think. I don’t really have any ideas on how to change the story itself (I actually found many of the ideas really charming and good), but visually I think it could have stood to be more striking and bold. Then again that’s a problem many films face nowadays, that ‘clean’ look
I liked wonka, the sheer absurdity of it was very fun for me, the fact that it’s this fun little cute story with songs about a small business man TOPPLING A FREAKIN COCOCAINE CARTEL AND DESTABILIZING A COCOCULT IS ABSOLUTE COMEDIC GOLD. Like every thing about it is so absurdly stupid it’s kinda charming to me, I don’t think it’s amazing but like, I mean, how can I not love a story about a chocolate drug cartel, the cococaine puns are to perfect, and the fact that the magic chocolate hallucinogens are just way to hilariously similar to spice in dune to not make me love it
In the original movie, the man who approached Charlie wasn’t Slugworth. He was a friend of Wonka’s posing as Slugworth.
I'm 17 minutes into a video i just realized was a musical analysis. I started this just off the Wonka story. Got my sub ❤
Seeing this then dune part 2 mustve been a trip
Give me the first one with Gene. That version is just awesome. The dude was bumping off kids left and right and people LOVED it! I remember pointing this out to my father and for the first time in years of having seen the show, it was the FIRST time he ever saw it from that point of view. That's the power and depth of the first movie.
Honestly, some characters just domt need backstories, i like the intrigue of not knowing his past, makes him more of a enigmatic character
Exactly!
The tunnel scene was improvised. The fear in the other actors was legit. Wilder did a lot of things ad lib that kept everyone on their toes. They didn't know what he was going to do next, which is what allowed for the darker side of him to show in the way that it did.
best outro for this video would've been "or not".
The best part of the original movie is that the man Wonka is presented fully formed. We don't get and ultimately don't need his origin story. We simply take him as he is.
When i was watching this, it really felt like Nudle was just there because they needed an important black female main character. Admittedly she’s not as egregious as others of the type, but she was still bland, and weak as a character, I didn’t feel invested in her at all.
(Take this with a grain of salt though, I’m the type that if the human characters just got blasted by Godzilla, or Kong just stepped on them, I genuinely wouldn’t care)
cant forgive you cutting hotel california right before one of the best solos in history
Blame copyright laws
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial lol true
The og willy wonker movie is the best hands down
Maybe just old school block head but original movie was so appealing because of schadenfreude. My friends and I were actively rooting against the horrible kids so never felt sorry for them. If kids just behaved nothing bad would have happen to them. So I always say movie as cautionary tale and Wonka was never too mean in my eyes or scary. Not saying it was bad movie but the elements I loved about original were nonexistent.
9:42 you pronounced psudo-charleton correctly
29:22 he’s just trying to do jazz hands (flicker fingers if you’re a theater kid) while in an enclosed location
Really enjoy your musical breakdown videos - looking forward to more :)
Thank you!!
From what I've heard Gene Wilder when he took the role of Wonka wanted his character to be untrustworthy...that's why he wanted his entrance to be pretending to be feeble and falling but then turning that into a forward tumble roll and standing up with a wide smile and presentation. Gene WANTED that to be the moment you realized you couldn't exactly trust Wonka 100% and that on looking back at the movie it could be taken different ways...such as his remarks when bad things happen to the children seeming as if he's either A) uncaring at best or B) taking pleasure in their actions having such drastic payback for them.
The scariest part of the Gene Wilder one to me was the goose part. Made me so scared of deep holes and stuff
Always thought trap doors were gonna be a more common problem in life. Same as quicksand
Anyone else wondering why this video looks like it was compiled in 1080i and upscaled to 1080p?
Never seen Wonka myself but random whimsy might work if it's part of a growth arc into a showman. Maybe he starts out as a magician but that constantly fails him as he learns to become a convincing showman. The growth arc would have to show him using less and less random whimsy while creating a whimsical public persona that creates a lot of mystery.
8:22 Took me totally by suprise, I literally spit out my coffee. Great joke 10/10
I will say. I agreed to see Aquaman 2 with my mom the weekend before I saw Wanka. That movie was a godsend by comparison. Let's be real we are in a era where, at least mainstream, films have set a lower average bar than Wanka met
I haven’t seen this movie so to hear the words “assassination attempt” in a Willy Wonka movie threw me lmfaoooo
even though it seems like the movie Wonka is a prequal. i do not think it is not a prequal because there is a movie that was rumored or such to be a prequal you wont think is a prequal until you go into the lore. there is a video talking about that. for me i feel like Wonka is a separate universe. (i know this is not related to the video but i had to mention such possibly.) Wonka vs Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory is two different sides but take willy wonka in two different directions. that is why the movie i am going to mention is a sort of prequal to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate factory. the movie in question is Snowpiercer which i find interesting. the video i need to mention about that is made by Rhino Stew.