you're all WRONG about Charlie & the Chocolate Factory 

Those other kids got a "boot to the head".

@mylittlethoughttree I'd love to see an impartial psychological study of Michael Jackson in the same way you approached Savile. You did a great job:).

also he defends " the point" of chocolate when they are in the glass elevator and Mike says candy/ chocolate is a " waste of time", there we get another shot of wonka's face pleased too

@@richarddweckcomedy Wonka's interactions with the other kids versus his interactions with Charlie were always noteworthy. With the other kids, there's always a back and forth involving sarcasm, shade, antagonising, and smartass comments. With Charlie on the other hand, there's positive interactions (except for their argument about family at the end), being joyed at only Charlie's presence at the start, sitting next to Charlie and Joe in the boat ride, offering them a sample of the river, laughing together with Charlie at the whipped cream joke, being happy that Charlie defended candy, and Charlie tasting the TV chocolate

This is a comment that rocks. Astute.🎉

I just had to get a snappier video title is all 😆

@@mylittlethoughttree people are starting to say that Wonka in the new film is more accurate to the book, but I feel it’s insulting, considering what Burton had to go through in correcting what Roald Dahl sees of the 1970s film, specifically the contrivances of a ”tell, don’t show” narrative. Lest we forget this new film is a prequel to the 1970s film, and not the prime source. BTW, I know what you’re gonna say what the “big problem” is, and it’s the Wilbur Wonka subplot. I know this, because someone already has an issue with it, forgetting that it’s intended for an *adaptation.* I can accept that Wonka would not welcome parents to his factory because of his traumatizing experience with his own father, all honesty, I feel it helps give a contrast to Charlie and his extensive family. Charlie has a lot of people to share time with, not just Grandpa Joe and Mrs. Bucket, but Charlie’s father and the other Grandparents. Like the book, they are filled with joy when Charlie is around. For Wonka, despite not having a family in the book, his experience with his father has to be so cruel, because Wilbur is a dentist who didn’t want his son to eat candy, because candy has a lot of sugar that would mess with his teeth. I for one appreciate this adaptational change, as it would give a major contrast between the Buckets and Wonka, with Charlie and Grandpa Joe having childlike hearts, and Wonka being so crooked in his mindset; in fact the name “Wonka” derives from Wonky, which is a synonym for crooked. Also, the “Wilbur Wonka” subplot is actually based on something Tim Burton went through with his mother; she didn’t want him to be a filmmaker, but when he left and became a success, she ended up being proud of Tim to the point of having clippings of film reviews. Tim found out upon his reunion, and is happy about it… that’s why the subplot is “abrupt”, in your opinion. I mean, maybe I agree with you that there needs to be something to earn Wonka’s reasoning to have Charlie earn the factory; like if they actually kept the 1971 film’s idea of Charlie buying a chocolate bar for his family, and that bar has the golden ticket; maybe then Charlie would earn his role as a good kid, because he would care about his family. One more thing: everything you said about Mike Teavee, it’s a subtle nod to the original book’s message involving him that we should only watch TV sparingly, and that letting them read books can help build on their imagination; heck, the book’s songs about the spoiled children did get their lyrics reimagined in the movie’s soundtrack.

@@mylittlethoughttreelol

That’s fair

Couldn’t say it better myself 😊

I agree. The biggest and most notable difference between both movies is the tone and feel. One feels like a classic, Disney fairy tale, the other is an edgy, grungy version with a spooky, sinister, and mysterious feel. And I actually like the grungy, modern edge of the 2005 movie more

@@ashhabimran239 ironically the darker one felt and looked more rich (i know its the technological advancement) but they just do. I need to check out the Timothee Chalamet one for comparison, his outfit looks like its resembling Gene’s Wonka

@@Freezient Chalamet honestly looks like a combination of Wilder's and Depp's Wonkas

@@ashhabimran239 I agree. I think that’s what they were going for too

Something else this movie does way better is "show, don't tell". The first movie does a lot of telling (such as relying on exposition), the second movie does a lot of showing (like actually giving us flashbacks)

Nostalgia is a powerful drug. nearly everyone saw the old one first, whether they were there in '71 or not. It's cult status, the nostalgia that happened when it later hit home releases that put it where it is now. Similar to *The Wizard of Oz* hitting television two decades after its release. *Charlie* is not only a stronger adaptation, it ties up more loose ends as I said. And that entire test of character in the first film makes little sense when a man Wonka clearly trusts works for him, and his reveal is abruptly swept under the rug. Also, trusting someone to never give something away and keep it to themselves is a pretty long period to continuously monitor someone to be sure they keep their word. Something positive, something they promise to do as opposed to not doing would be an easier test. @@ashhabimran239

Well, I feel like both movies (and the original book and non-movie adaptations) want us to enjoy seeing the non-Charlie kids suffer because of how obnoxious they are. If you want to make the characters' goal to save them, you've reached a place where you might be better off not doing a version of this story at all.

Here’s the thing Charlie wouldn’t succeed in saving the kids. And you can still enjoy seeing them get a sort of karma. The point is to reinforce that Charlie and Grandpa Jo are good and kind people and not following Wonka’s unsaid expectations and are willing to save people even if they are horrible jerks. Only with Grandpa Jo’s reassurance that the kids will be fine does Charlie go on with the tour. Grandpa Jo is obviously not sure about the kids safety and can even say something to Wonka about how much he and the factory have changed from the wonderful place it was when he worked for him all those years ago.

That’s honestly something I wish was further explored in this movie. In the first one he tried to save Augustus, and was concerned for their safety. In the ‘05 movie, it very ambiguous how he feels. From the great glass elevator, you can’t tell how it feels, but it looks like they were so horrible to him that not even Charlie could feel sympathy for them, or maybe, he’s relieved they’re ok. Maybe Charlie turning down the factory and being cold to Wonka was a cumulation of everything he saw happen in the factory, and saying he can’t bring his family was the last straw for Charlie. Honestly, in either movie, I’m surprised Charlie even trusted Wonka after everything he saw.

@@theadaptationstationmaster I feel that worked well in the 2005 movie because the other kids were actually nasty, little gremlins like they were supposed to be. One of many things the original failed at was making Augustus, Violet, and Mike too normal and likeable

@@ashhabimran239 Here's something I wrote in a blog post about this story. It won't change your mind but maybe you'll find it interesting. "Part of the appeal of the book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, is that it taps into the appeal of traditional fairy tales without using any of the surface trappings, such as witches, fairies, princes or princesses. Charlie is basically the downtrodden youngest sibling whose virtue triumphs and who is rewarded in the end. The other four children are the relatively better off older siblings whose vices lead to their downfall. Having Charlie make the same mistake that they do (as in the 1971 movie) breaks the pattern and mars this. ...Willy Wonka is the disguised fairy dishing out rewards and punishments. He’s supposed to stand outside morality so to speak. That’s why Charlie and Grandpa Joe show concern for the other ticket winners and he doesn’t. Having him need to learn a lesson of his own (as in the 2005 movie) is all wrong."

Same! There is such a difference to how people online seems to think vs people in real life

I never understood why people need to see the backstory as "unnecessary". I think it compliments Wonka and gives him more Depp (pun-intended), showing us how it starting and showing the other end of the spectrum with overly-strict parenting. And it gives more parallels to Wonka and Charlie, both were young boys fascinated with chocolate and living in turbulent situations, but one always had his loving family and the other didn't. Not to mention one is mature for his age and the other was yet to grow up mentally

@@ashhabimran239 I'd agree with this. I think, of you're going to frame Wonka as a bad guy who needs to change, then his backstory becomes necessary. The problem is not properly executing Wonka's change following the meeting with Charlie. That makes the backstory feel unnecessary because it never leads to anything in enough of a satisfying way, but it's still a good thing to have

@@mylittlethoughttree The way Wonka was framed was always difficult to tell. You could argue he's framed as a 'bad guy', but at the same time, the story frames him as more of just a complex character/co-protagonist that's hard to figure out. The other 4 kids are treated as the main antagonists of the film and I may be playing devil's advocate, but despite how planned the tour seemed, the kids (and parents to a degree) only have themselves to blame for what happened to them, and can likely change after this tour. Wonka saw a lot of himself in Charlie, so he was confused and crushed when Charlie rejected the factory, and how Charlie has something Wonka was never able to understand (and likely envies it deep down) because of his troubled past. I think deep down, he knows Charlie is right and wants to make amends, but he's in denial. Look at the shoe-shine scene where he tried to argue back, but couldn't (knowing Charlie has a point), and straight up admits he can't do it alone (suggesting he wants to), and is immediately on board when Charlie offers to go with him, again proving he's desperate to fix things. (Trivia: that final dentist scene was based on Burton's real-life experience. He didn't have the best relationship with his parents, but when he visited his dying mother, she had newspapers of his achievements, showing pride, but I digress). I get why it can feel rushed, but Willy's desire to fix things with Charlie's moral support, combined with how Dr Wonka was actually proud of him, made that change easier for both of them. I know I rambled so much, just wanted to explore my full thoughts on it

@@mylittlethoughttree willy wonka isn't a bad guy

She doesn't fvkking know. She was just trying to make money after he died. Don't pretend this version was about "art". It was soulless money grab.

​@@ralphiecifaretto8961 how does that work? The first adaptation of the book was literally a soulless money grab by quaker oats. Dahls wife helped write the second movie.

That’s the biggest difference between both Joes. One is a cynical, grumpy old man that’s become a meme lately for all the dumb stuff he did. The other Joe is more warm and comforting.”, and despite being a child at heart, isn’t irresponsible

I didn't even know there was one! Sounds like I should see it, thanks!

Wait, how are they enslaved? Wonka seems to treat the workers well, and they strike a deal in exchange for an unlimited supply of coco beans.

Thanks! It's quite nice to have a comment recognising that I was half-overthinking for the fun/meaning of it. From a lot of the other reaction, I felt like I didn't make that point clear enough, ah well! Glad you enjoyed it

Yeah, even a lot of the comments here attest to it

Gene wilder somersault is 100 times more entertaining than depps stupid facial expressions.

Yeah nothing new sadly

@@jimmystrickland1034 for me I see two very different movies, therefore I like them for different reasons. It seems like the reasons why I like this movie is the exact same reasons why people hate it which leads me to believe people hate it because it’s different.

​@@jimmystrickland1034 for me, Gene Wilder version is boring as hell. Johnny Depp's portrayal is way more fun and entertaining to watch.

The fizzy lifting scene 1) was not in the book and 2) flies in the face of Charlie and Grandpa Joe’s character. After seeing the consequences that befell some of the other children who disobeyed Wonka, why would Grandpa Joe encourage Charlie to do the same? If the previous children’s recklessness disqualified them, then Charlie didn’t deserve to win either. Whether or not he returned that piece of candy would be irrelevant. The test was also not in the book, and it bears repeating that the 2005 version is NOT a remake of the 1971 film, which Roald Dahl hated. If he were alive to see the Charlie version, I believe he would have been proud of Tim Burton’s work. I think a better word to describe Charlie in the 2005 version is joyful. His circumstances are poor, but he’s surrounded by love. He knows how his family is strained by their situation, but he doesn’t let himself get driven into despair or entitlement. Instead he believes in doing his part and pulling his weight as only a child can (e.g. sharing his chocolate bar with his family, bringing discarded newspapers home for his father to read, etc.), and at times demonstrates mature and self-sacrificial behavior that a little boy raised in poverty would make (e.g. giving up his ticket for the money). These are not Mary Sue qualities, but qualities of a genuinely good person raised by good people.

These lil gen z kids who were 3 when the 2005 version came out and grew up on crappy mid 2000s cgi movies, hold ABSOLUTELY NO!!! weight with me comparing the 2 movies. They don’t know what’s good from bad. They are clueless people.

ikr they have him 0 personility in this movie in the orginal film he had far more personality

I love this version too, my argument was that it's not terrible and even sort of better than the original, despite me still preferring the 1971 version

@@mylittlethoughttree I was being cheeky 😁😁

Yes. The 1971 version is boring for me lol, 2005 version is much more fun, and has that mysterious vibe. Depp is much more entertaining and expressive.

Ah thanks!

I agree. He doesn't feel like a real child, just an adult's idea of an angelic one to good to be true.

90s Flav - Call Me. I think anyway, I've put all the songs in the description

Same! The original is great but this one definitely hits different and I love it

You need to see a doctor because your brain isn't working

It bears repeating that the 1971 film is not the “original,” but merely the earliest adaptation of the book. Tim Burton made a point of not allowing the crew to watch the 1971 adaptation until their own film was complete in order to prevent the 2005 adaptation from being tainted by its influence.

I certainly have a more enjoyable time watching the 1971 version but I also think the 2005 is objectively better

@@mylittlethoughttree You have the patience of a tik tok boi trying to watch a good classic movie. That mid 200s crap movie gets the boot. Andy the manical cinephile.

It’s more faithful to the book blah blah blah, that don’t make it even remotely better than the 70s masterpiece.

@@jimmystrickland1034 how is the 70s movie a masterpiece? It’s just a cheap and soulless chocolate commercial that was pretty much made against Roald Dahl’s wishes and jurisdiction over his own story. There was actual love and care that went into the 2005 film by Dahl’s family and Burton.

@@darkridergames1707 tell me more.. you sound so intelligent and insightful. Interesting.

@@darkridergames1707 I’ll admit it was a pretty good movie, rite up until Charlie finds the golden ticket. Then it went downhill hill like a snowball.

@@jimmystrickland1034 I personally like everything in the factory. Especially with how it looks. All of the sets look really good and almost everything was practical. For me the best part is the Oompa Loompa songs. They have lyrics ripped straight from the book, and are just more enjoyable to listen to than the 71’ film’s versions of those songs.

Oh wow, thanks! I didn't get any comments about it, so I'd been wondering. I'll do it again in future if there's any similar scenes in other videos :)

Can you explain what exactly is "so early 2000s"? The color grading of the movie?

It does slightly annoy me when people declare this film absolute trash without any explanation why 😆 like I can fully understand why people might not like it but it's not an awful failure of a movie

It was because the camera flashes are really bright and I wanted to make the video more watchable for anyone that struggles with it. Whether or not a slight dark filter actually helps, I don't know, but I put it over all the clips with bright flashes

Ie tyne and wear metro

You can ask but you'd have to explain what any of that means before I can answer 😆

@@mylittlethoughttree I saw though out your videos you had a use of the Jesmond type face

@@sglenny001 Rockwell Nova? Is that the same as Jesmond typeface?

@@mylittlethoughttree they look pretty similar thankyou

dwWilly Wonka may have some flaws, but that's what makes him so lovable and relatable. winks Plus, his flaws are part of what makes his character so interesting and dynamic. but he is still a kind hearted man in the original films as well not just the prequel

It's not a remake

Oh really? Can I ask what age you are roughly

@@mylittlethoughttree exactly 27. My colleague (32) I went to watch Wonka with and my parents (around 60) also didn't even know there was another movie before the Tim Burton one, and my older brother, who is a real film buff, at least knew about the older adaptation, but hadn't watched it, and frankly, for me it was also a coincidence that I had watched it before. Might also be dependant on country, we're not from the UK nor US, maybe it's for of a classic for you anglophone folks? So I know I'm totally biased but I can't see how anyone would prefer the 70s version over the Burton one

Watch Media Mementos' video about the movie. It's such a good review that, from now on, before I do any debate between the two movie versions, I require my opponent to watch that entire video first.