Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Lost in Adaptation ~ The Dom 

I see conflicting messages there, dom.

i think what he was referring to as 'racist' was when the chocolate fell on the middle of the indian prince's forehead, thus mimicking the bindi (sorry if that is the wrong term)

Yllasville1110 Could be, but it also implies the Indian prince is very stupid (some might take that to apply to all Indians, as idiotic as that assumption might be), and he possibly meant the portrayal of the prince in general was racist. I don't really know, but I felt the statement may have applied to the scene as a whole.

I feel racism was inserted here... because I didn't see anything racist about it. You'd have to look for I'm guessing the chocolate drop as the dot on some Indian's foreheads and just THINK that as racist to really see this scene as racist - I enjoyed the scene myself.

+ramirezthesilvite I think that's kinda just your grievance, showing one member of a race being stupid doesn't make anyone think that the entire race is stupid, that just feels like a personal thing for you.

NOT A REMAKE. *2005 film

Mairead Malesco yes it is. its much different from the old one but it still counts as a remake. even if the movies have different names.

It’s an alternate adaptation of the same source material and is more faithful to the source material.

I prefer the part where he says “that is cannibalism, and it is frowned apon in many societies”

@@saklee1777 one thing I don’t get is why would they turn the Jawbreaker (or gobstopper for you fancy Europeans out there), into an ugly misshaped Candy? Clearly the Wonka version wasn’t good with the design compared to the Charlie version.

So Dahl (and his wife) don't even understand the story and morals of his own work? Well, that's unfortunate.

​@Charles12 this might be the dumbest comment on this whole website.

Burton was also deeply affected by the death of both his parents (2000 for his dad and 2002 for his mom), which is how and why he ended up directing Big Fish (2003). It's no surprise that he would decide to make an adaptation Dahl's family approved of since he himself wasn't thrilled about the original. I don't quite think the movie was ever meant to be more than that, and by looking at it through that lens, general audience approval wasn't relevant. I honestly hated both movies because I think Dahl wanted to endgame kids through his gross books, but both movies deserve recognition for being exactly what they are. Much love! 🙏 ❤

​@@MelancholyRequiemSpeak for yourself and your condescending attitude. Us kids LOVED Dahl's books because they spoke the langauge of kids. Kids are (in general) violent little weirdos and Dahl did not romanticize them like most people do. He got us.

@@Charles12So, you think you understand the message of a story better than the person who wrote it, uh? Talk about entitlement and arrogance.

Me too!!

Grant Witherspoon Ikr...choose One xD

Grant Witherspoon It's a joke about how, if you do certain types of scene wrong - namely these jokey and/or tangential ones - it can actually be worse than leaving it out. If that type of scene is only half as good as its book counterpart, it's like half a kitten. It's not half as cute as a kitten, it's a gory mess.

I think he meant the scene with the chocolate dripping the spot on his for head... That has some cultural undertones

I would have preferred it if there we're glimpses of the story when it was told rather than an entire freaking scene.

@@sarahgent2674 josie the half-cat would like to have a word with you

Later on, the same peach crashes through the Wonka chocolate factory.

@@Narbaculus in the same chapter

@@Narbaculusthe jatgp-catcf connected universe?!?!

And that is why Wilder was a better Wonka than Dahl or Depp's.

Fun fact about that scene, the children in the scene had no idea it was coming, so when Wilder comes out and the kids look like they feel really bad for him, that was the genuine reaction of the actors.

Gene was such a comedic genius. He also made up the creepy ditty in the tunnel scene (the disturbing imagery was to exacerbate the reactions of the actors)

And Dahl hated that.

@@Emisop good lol f Dahl

@@mastaaceexclusive how does that even remotely apply to my comment 2 years later lol

i'm not the biggest fan of felicity. roald put a ban on any adaptation of james and the giant peach, and after his death, felicity promptly greenlit an adaptation. also she completely missed the mark with this film

@@secretblue0290 thank you for providing yet another example of why Felicity is a better judge for what should be included. Without her, no James and the Giant Peach movie?? She's even better than I thought, thank you again Edit: still two years later, y'all necroposting like crazy lol

@@tippydaug525 bro what the hell? she went against her recently deceased husband's wishes to get that movie made. HOW ABOUT WE RESPECT THE MAN'S WISHES, ESPECIALLY AFTER HIS DEATH

@@secretblue0290 yea nah I'm not engaging in random caps spam arguments with keyboard warriors. have a nice life bud :)

idk i think johnny’s wonka is pretty insane too. but he’s also very socially akward with less enthusiasm.

Sadly, the author Hated the first movie, and his wife believed he would love the second adaptation because it was more faithful to the material.

I personally love both actors. They are some of my favorite zany character experts. And, yes, both Willy Wonkas are completely deranged, they just show it in a different way. And damn I love both of these THECNICOLOR FREAKS (digitally color corrected would be more correct for the 2000s one, but eh, details).

in that case, i'd certainly say the original was superior. in my opinion, gene wilder brought the film to new heights. his manic presence in the factory is so overlooked by watchers. for some reason, people say the remake was darker than the original. this is absolutely untrue. wilder's expressive and unpredictable nature turns him into a kind of superior force in the factory. i can't articulate exactly what it was, but by god did gene lift the movie to being one of my favorites of all time.

to be honest i love the second movie, the differences added by burton to make everything slightly disturbing (while simply could be just him burtoning up everything) really made sense to me for the book, it felt like an extension of the self awareness added in the movies, and also reflects how disturbing roald dahl's books generally are when you think about it. like the socially awkward Willy Wonka really makes sense considering he is a genius obsessed with candy and has had no human interaction for however many years. not to mention the soundtrack slaps (all hail danny elfman)

Danny Elfman originally planned to write the songs all with the same tune since he thought that was how they were meant to be like in the original film, but Burton said no. The original version of Veruca’s song with Augustus’ tune is available on RU-vid I’m honestly glad they changed it, while the song is pretty catchy, if they went with the idea to use Augustus’ tune with different lyrics, it would not have fit the tone of the film at all

Yeah, at least him

john pidgeon All the worst things ever.

And Dracula

And a Werewolf hunter. Specially the flashy ones.

And a man with a golden gun

Vampire

Being squeezed would probably hurt though!

NotTheSmoooze I think the lesson she learned was to be different than her mom. When you first see them, she is just a mini version of her mom. Turning blue made mom disappointed, but violet happy. It's safe to say that she will never be like her mom after all.

Also, remember that she had to go back to school after turning blue. Imagine that.

She's a freak of nature now. They all are.

How are Augustus and Veruca freaks? Those two got dirty and maybe crapped their pants. That's all. ~Lunara

That's right. I heard Dahl took his dislike to Wilder after Wilder added in the part in his initial intro to the film, where, as Wonka, he limped up to the gates and then appeared to fall but, at the last minute, turned it into a forward roll. Wilder stated that he did it to show right from the start that Wonka was a trickster who could never be entirely trusted, and even went as far as to say he would only accept the role if that change was written into the final movie. Of course the film company wanted him so badly for that part they caved in, but Dahl vehemently disagreed with Wilder's interpretation of Wonka, and that's where the hate came from. I can't remember if Dahl had already passed when Burton made his version; I wonder how he would have felt about his interpretation of Wonka?

Maerahn Actually Dahl’s wife was a co-producer. What she said was that Dahl would have loved the new movie and would have gotten along with burton quiet well. Keep in mind that’s his wife saying that, but still.

I loved "Great Glass Elevator" as a kid, more than the original book; especially the satirical bits about the US President and Space Hotel USA that play almost as "Dr. Strangelove" for kiddies... but in hindsight, there are a bunch of wacky-foreign-accent gags in there that probably would have aged extremely poorly unless they were omitted from any adaptation. It might have been a bullet dodged.

(I remember reading the book for my daughter at bedtime, and unconsciously drifting into performing President Lancelot R. Gilligrass as Peter Sellers' President Merkin Muffley from "Dr. Strangelove." But at one point Dahl describes him as having a raspy voice--probably he's really more a parody of Nixon.)

It's more racist than the first book... "every time you wing you get the wong number".

Yep. Later editions changed them to be pale-skinned characters and Loompaland became an indeterminate fictional location. Dahl himself made the changes after being successfully convinced that the original text was pretty racist (which actually kind of surprises me, given Dahl's general attitudes toward these things).

Dude, he changed it specifically because of racist complaints.

Say wasn't Roald Dahl anti-Semitic?

And they were naked too. Bet you'd like to see short naked african men doing slavery work in a children's film. Oh wait....

+THEGREATMAX Yeah, I noticed that part.

Something about the difference between dental hygiene and the sugar in chocolate, which is bad for teeth?

count coventry and think about wanka and his dad pretty similar

@@killerfoxraspberryplays8903 😂

@@killerfoxraspberryplays8903 P.s. what you typed means something different to us Brits...

Actually, they didn't, the entire squirrel squadron in the nut room are all CGI, even the ones in the closeups. Now what they DID do was hire a handful of squirrels and squirrel handlers and film them so as to get the proper reference for the scene: so things like speed, reflections, saturation, and motion.

@@shelbyherring92 Ohhhh! Yeah that makes much more sense

@@shelbyherring92 And even if they had, it wouldn't have been thousands. If there were any real squirrels in that scene, it would have only been one or two. Admittedly none of them look entirely real. Squirrels I've seen all look fatter and fluffier. I should note I've only seen them around in British autumns in parks, and once tearing up a tree in winter.

@@strawberrysoulforever8336 Grey squirrels are generally fatter and fluffier than red squirrels. The area I live in has both; in my experience grey squirrels tent to live in more urban areas while red squirrels prefer heavier forest. The leaner squirrels in the movie make sense as red squirrels, but the color was much too brown (a mistake that happens a lot in fiction)

@@dbseamz It might just be British squirrels, as there were several of both shades in the London park I walked through. I might be remembering things slightly incorrectly, though, as it was a while ago. I think they were all fatter, but maybe some weren't as fluffy as I remember.

Sometimes its good to be selfish! It can be a hard lesson for some people who are too giving.

Rebeca Jimenez That is such an understatement. I’m working on learning it for myself. I give way to much of myself which isn’t too bad but I’ve had a male friend recently tell me that I need to be more selfish when he found out some of the things I did. But yeah there’s nothing wrong with being selfish every once in a while.

In my opinion between the two movies I prefer Charlie in the original. 2005 Charlie was too saintly and he was considering selling the golden ticket to a stranger! While 1971 Charlie wanted the golden ticket more then anyone! So to me 1971 Charlie is more a normal child then 2005 Charlie.

The idea that economic hardship is a pain to be endured, which when properly done so is rewarded by mega corporations with opportunity that is the fruit of such hardships, is one of the central lies of neoliberalism and capitalism. It perpetuates economic disparity by the dream of wealth keeping the working classes complacent and dissuading them from partaking in either protest for their human rights or revolution against a flawed economic system. The point of Charlie is that he is a good kid, he is morally pure inside a corrupt world. And he wins the factory by demonstrating such purity. In the original film, Charlie wins the factory by refusing to be corrupted by Soviet spies and to reinforce concepts of corporate ownership of ideas. Which makes the film Red Scare propoganda. No wonder Dahl hated it so much. In Tim's remake, Charlie initially thinks the best use of this opportunity is to conform to the economic and political structures he was born under and perform the action which will immediately benefit the people he cares about by monetarily profiting from the ticket. He is then lectured by the cynical, jaded and depressed grandpa George about the nature of value, and that contrary to the claims of capitalism there are objects and concepts more valuable than money. So yes, the original film turning a deconstructionist mockery of capitalism is most certainly not a good change. And don't pretend it's "just a meaningless kids novel", the original depicts justification of slavery, oppression of the working class and an insane head man child owner, the sequel is a satire of the space race, and the unwritten third novel was literally taking place in the white house. Charlie and the Chocolate factory is a political series, but despite most of the discourse around the property, it's not a support of slavery and capitalism, but instead the opposite. And Charlie is not meant to be a relatable "normal kid". He's meant to be idealised and naive of the larger economic and political structures he was born into on purpose. The other children were corrupted by their parent ideologies and spoiled, and that corruption is how such broken systems are perpetuated.

Yeah..but Charlie and his family are poor and starving. There's a major difference there.

+sulacomarine now i have to read the book to understand how they fit a whole novel in the elevator

+QuikVidGuy Spaceship.

Willy Wonka is The Doctor!

Macaroni and Cliches they don't, they come back to the factory about halfway through, and at a point go to the land of the dead, kind of

really?! no one is going to say it? fine. So it's bigger on the inside?

Utter nonsense.

As someone who took French in school for almost 5 years, I agree with Dom. Clearly made up gobbledegook language. Utter nonsense 😂

​@@lightsideofsin8969You need to wash your lug'oles out matey. Clearly French with a somewhat strange accent.

L. T C. I get what you're saying, and you're generally correct, but I do hear chocolate called candy in the US. I mean, we call kit-kats and snickers candy bars.

+Kerri September That's likely because they're not entirely chocolate... The subject in question is pure chocolate.

L. T C. dont forget that hard hard

Hershey bars are also often referred to as candy bars. Pure chocolate, nothing else.

That may be a regionalism for you. I'm in the midwest, and chocolate comes under the umbrella of "candy." American English isn't monolithic. ;)

I agree. The book and the Burton version both fell whole in their way. The first film seems chopped of in comparison. Plus, the subplot of the psy and the test makes a big enough change so I wouldn't call that movie "faithful" (and that could explain why Dahl hated it).

I also liked the quirkiness of Burton's vision of Willy Wonka. He has been totally away from human contact for the better part of 20 years... being weird, dis-associative and out of sync from everybody else would make sense. When we saw it in the theater, my husband and I nearly fell out of our seats at his arrival... the singing dolls catching fire. We got the joke. Nobody else seemed to.

I always viewed the remake to be about the effect parents had on their children (mostly how parents hurt their children even while trying to do their best for them.) Every kid, including Wonka, are products of their upbringing. That’s actually why I liked what they added, as it helps tie together the theme for me.

In my opnion Burton's remake is a better movie than the original. I really hated what they did to charley and wonka in the original movie.

@@pixietwitch what's the joke?

Disney's The Call of Cthulu? I honestly would love to see that!

Well, the original novel is a deconstructionist analysis of capitalism, and the original film literally tells kids to avoid Soviet corruption and not question or betray capitalist ideology. So, pretty sure the message was lost in translation.

Turbo Nerdo I think you might be reading to much into it.

@@samuelbarber4154 - Portrayal of oppression of the working class in the form of slavery - Entrepreneurial innovationist portrayed as a crazy, psychopathic loner - All the kids are reflections of mindless, obedient consumerism perpetuated by the previous generation, born into privileged positions of relative wealth - Owner has the potential to utilise his inventions for groundbreaking innovation and betterment of human wellbeing, but only sells the things that can guarantee him maximum profit - Destabalises an entire towns economy out of fear of infiltration by spies - The narrative is resolved by the means of production being redistributed from the elitist multi-billion dollar owner to an impoverished poor child and the owner sacrificing his own position of economic power - The second novel parodies the space race and the un-made third novel would have been set in the white house Face it, this narrative is inherently political and economic. You cannot have a narrative that isn't economic when you set it in a factory, a location which literally houses the means of production. Now are all these details intentional? Who knows. I know the slavery thing was probably just Dahl being racist. But honestly, I really don't care, death of the author isn't 100% accurate, but I tend to favour it over auteur theory. Regardless, one or two of these details appearing is a coincidence, all them being present means this is definitely a valid reading.

A Donald comic does adapt the Call of Cthulhu. It is actually freakier than the Lovecraft's original due to the Ducks having, you know, a personality...

It makes me wonder how the poor stunt artist felt about have load have high trained squirrels jump on them. Must have been the least bit stressful.

Same.

me too! i was hooked after ella enchanted

Alexandria Miles me too

Same

same

Saruman the Sith lord vampire dentist.

RIP Christopher Lee

EntertainmentBreeze rip traditional america

Insert Name Here there is no way you can compare the death of Gene Wilding to the death of a gorilla

Fuck you I Karen about him please not mention him just screwed up man

Don Corleone no killing people, that's bad.

The reason the first movie was called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was because at the time there was this street drug called "Charlie " and the writers feared that it would cause confusion. And they wanted to make sure that the story focused more on Wonka then Charlie.

@@melissacooper4482 and because Quaker oats wanted to sell more Wonka brand candy

@@melissacooper4482 I thought it was related to the (all too common) marketing fear that the lead actor not playing the title character would cause confusion.

@@melissacooper4482 "Charlie" was also considered an anti-Asian slur at the time the original film was released, which I suspect had something to do with the name change as well.

Seems like good info to teach kids. 1) You shouldn't eat people. And also, 2) You can if you really need to.

It's a remake only in the sense that it was an attempt to do something successfully that they failed at the first time. It's not a remake in the traditional sense, but an adaption of the book. Any similarities between the movies that don't come directly from the book are nods added by people like the set-dressers, as the script writers weren't even allowed to watch the original when they wrote the script.

​@@Thedarkbunnyrabbitits not a remake at all, its a separate adaptation

@@sallytheuselessbird That is what I just said.

That line sums Wonka up really well. Insane, genius, and a strange sort of teacher.

Even a lot of the lyrics used in the remake were from the book.

True

Technically. I still didn't like it, the book was good though

+Elias Villa have to agree with you there

I know right? who knew!

WAIT THERE’S A WITCHES MOVIE???

@@ProfessorWalnut And a Lost in Adaptation review on it!

@@ProfessorWalnut yes. The main difference between the book and the movie is the ending. The book ends with Luke just adapting to spend the rest of his life as a mouse. The movie ends with Luke being restored to his human form by a former bad witch.

And a review of Matilda: The Musical

Matilda: Carrie Jr.

@@TCgamerboy2002 and said 'dentist father' who 'didn't approve' still supported his son from afar and made note of all his accomplishments. he still loved him, that was never going to change.

The first time I watched this I actually DID click away. It took a rewatch like 2 months later for me to realize that it keeps going there.

same i almost fell for it

Well, the square sweets that look round don't work in movie form.

@@strawberrysoulforever8336 I think they could work. Have the eyes side away from the camera, and then when Willy enters the room, they turn around. It could totally work.

@@Barnowl65 Yes, but the joke was very text-based, with the "look round" part was that they looked "around". If you watch bandgeek8408's Books vs Movies review of the 1971 movie and the book, he explains why it works better in the book.

I honestly have a soft spot for the original film, not because it's burton (I love a lot of Burtons stuff, and even Depps stuff), but because for me Willy Wonka will always be the guy that watches some kid run off with a dead pan expression "Stop. No. Don't. come back." aimed so sarcastically at the mother. Gene Wilder -was- Willy Wonka for me. Maybe because I grew up with it. I also actually really liked a lot of the original songs in the first film. The second film, I did enjoy it. I There were elements I would have adored to see in the original film if it had been possible at the time. However, what spoiled the remake for me was the daddy issues Wonka had. It seemed to come back to that as a constant throughout the entire film, even when really there was no need for it to come up at all. Wonka didn't -need- Daddy issues. He didn't need a tragic back story. In the books for me. Wonka was very child like throughout, and Depp, while a good actor, portrayed an adult who had trauma. He didn't really portray someone who was child like. Wilder did. He was funny, engaging, and even somewhat unecessarily cruel because of his self absorbed nature. Traits that a good number of children have and eventually grow out of. Endearing in children though, but a little creepy and strange in an adult. It's what he needed to be. Original film version cons for me... even as a child and later as an adult.. I -hated- the fizzy lifting drinks scene. It always weirded me out, not only because of teh whole near death experience thing, but because it came so far out of left field for me. Charlie wasn't supposed to be the type to steal or misbehave. He was always a good boy and then just randomly he does that one thing, and even worse there's no real consequences for it. It wasn't in the book and I didn't want it in the film tbh. The remake -was- a lot more faithful to the book with the songs from the Oompa Loompas and a lot of the dialogue though, so I will give them that, and there really was a lot of good things about it. Original wins it for me though, even without the square sweets that look round, a pun that works a lot better in novel form than visual form I feel.

@@strawberrysoulforever8336 I don't see how it wouldn't. I was confused when I saw that video way back in the day, why he thought it wouldn't work, and was only text-based. I would only understand if the text was describing them as "looking round, and the joke was completely centered around, the play on words, but there is a reveal at the end of them "looking 'round", just like how a movie would present it.

MJ and Patrick at the Cold Fall Out Disco! Dragons oh god I busted up when he did that when I rewarded that movie this past Saturday. I love wilder's performance.

Your username has earned you my respect

Does that mean we don't have to pick a side?

@@ForrestFox626 You can like both or neither.

It all depends on what you prefer because both adaptations added plot points that were not in the original story. For 1971 version they had the whole Slugworth/Gobstopper subplot which tested Charlie's integrity at the end of the film. In the 2005 they added Wonka's backstory which explains why Wonka is the way he is and ultimately led to his reconciliation with his father at the end of that film.

@@ForrestFox626 my brother in christ

I've heard that in the editions of the book illustrated by Quentin Blake, the Oompa-Loompas are multi-coloured. Dunno if that came before or after the film, though.

Well, the slavery undertones are still there, and whatever the parallel was meant to be, it was still rather racist, in the vein of some of the stuff Disney did. Thursday or whatever he was called, the little African child sent to Mickey Mouse in this one book, was completely ignorant. And it's either that, or Uncle Remus from Song Of The South. Neither of those are exactly culturally sensitive.

A reminder that Dahl was a man of his time.

Black slaves, NOT african-americans.

I didn't mind it.

i like Burton's better too

You are not. I think I read the book before I saw the 70s movie and all the changes bugged me as a result. I liked Burton because it was closer to the book.

I think both adaptations are at an "Okay" level. I loved the book as a child, but my mum thought the 70s movie was too scary for me. Years later I got curious and watched both adaptations, and I found there are pros and cons to both. I like both films while recognising the flaws of either. I enjoy the slight awkward moments and the sets of Tim Burton's film. And I love Gene Wilder's performance as Wonka. The way I see it it's a matter of taste.

no i totally agree with you.

A remake at best

Considering the book never specified the nationality of the kids, I think it is fair to say that was taken from the 71 version.

I agree.

​@@ForrestFox626It would've taken some inspiration from the original movie but that doesnt make it a reboot

@@sallytheuselessbird When did I say it was a reboot?

Did you know that Roald Dahl himself hated Gene Wilder as Wonka?

@@Emisop Do you know that it doesn’t matter? Just because Dahl didn’t like it doesn’t mean the result was bad.

@@professorbutters It is 'kinda' bad when the screenwriters who where just looking for a pay day form Quaker Oats hires some you don't like behind your back despite being the writer of the story

And he does an impeccable American accent.

its definitely better than my singing

"You know, I'm going to have to play Devil's advocate" I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I completely agree with you on this one, I actually liked the Remake much more than the original.

The fact that you quoted the princess bride movie is intriguing in response to this comment

Maybe from adaptational point of view. To me the music,aesthetics and acting in the original were so much better than the remake that it wins hands down if one is judging them simply as films with no regard to their being adaptations.

@@flamemasterelan and what do you think it means?

The Vermicious knids.

Actaully Roald Dahl hated the 70's movie and whilst he never saw the 2005 movie his wife did say that he would have liked it more

Reese Miller eh, the burton one is fun, the gene wilder one is a classic.

Reese Miller Both movies are great. Neither of them was 100% accurate to the book, but a lot of enjoyable details were kept in. I had a lot of fun watching them. The original is indeed a classic already. I don't know if the reboot might become one as well, but I really hope so.

Reese Miller The answer is no if you're gonna use the wrong form of “they're”

Reese Miller Yes. So do I.

Reese Miller I love both

As a person who regards themselves as about half-bright I resent that remark! As does my dominatrix friend who calls me over whenever she gets a new whip to try it out on her!

That was hilarious!! 😂

@@JamesWilson-vr3ql Wait, when was the last time a dominatrix let someone _else_ use her whip on _her?_ 🤔

Dats da joke.

Sounds like German to me but could be French

It's because he's English and there is a historic rivalry (albeit currently far less bloody) between the French and the English.

It's all Greek to me :P

May I introduce you to the art of sarcasm? Brits like the Dom are pros at it.

I know, great talent has been lost. R.I.P Gene Wilder, you will be greatly missed.

Or probably because Deep Roy has brown skin and Burton just picked him because he's a dwarf actor willing to do it

AdoreSinging394% Deep Roy is Indo-Kenyan and people of Indian descent have a variety of skin colors.

The irony there is that of course, since it's stated Lumpaland is in Africa, some might say NOT giving them brown skins was racist.

Blasphemy!

Honey boo boo would be the perfect applicant.

I thought that 1971 Augustus was pretty hefty back in his time. But 2005 Augustus was really huge!

@@melissacooper4482 2005 Augustus wore a fat suit.

@@elektra121 that's good.

Interesting how the general public thinks that the OG film is a nostalgic classic and the remake to be weirdly bad while the Dahl family thinks otherwise.

@@modmaker7617 They just don't like it because of rose-tinted glasses, Johnny Depp's version of Willy Wonka, and "too much CGI". Of course Johnny's version is more accurate to how he would be after being locked in a factory for a decade with no one but Oompa Loompas for company, and a lot of the things people complain about being terrible CGI are actually real things that were on set, and the things that are actually CGI are not as critiqued.

@@SpeedyCheetahCub I like how the Johnny Depp movie blended CGI with practical effects. I genuinely sometimes cannot tell which is which. I find Johnny Depp's version of the character to be relatable but that's a personal thing. This film is a part of my childhood. I my have rose-tinted glasses for this film. I haven't seen the original film so I can't really say if it's good or bad.

In some defense; there are definitely a lot of scenes within books that sound grand and amazing visually, but ultimately you kind of end up being lame and disappointing once they actually get to the live action screen. Think of the non-Euclidean spaces found in HP Lovecraft’s work and how you can’t really make those spaces practically or how none of hid monster are really fully described.

Actually, there was only one or two actual squirrels trained. The rest were robots.

Still more than the original