Talk:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Untitled

Quaker Valley Middle School is doing this play in sewickley, PA, Next weekend (March's second weekend)!!! 147.72.81.53 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The book was filmed as Willie Wanka and the Chocolate Factory, but Dahl never enjoyed the experience of creating the film and vowed not to allow further film versions of his work." -- The Article

Which source states this? I ask because the film was released in 1971 which would mean that Roald Dahl had made the comment sometime around then, however The BFG was turned into a movie in 1989 1 year before his death.

It's quite possible Roald Dahl changed his mind in the 9 years, but I thought I should bring some attention to it, because obviously he changed his mind later ;) --John Lynch 09:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well it's been over a month and no-one was able to offer any proof so I deleted it. If anyone can offer any proof that he said it (a reference or something) then free to put it back, but until that happens I recommend it be left out as the facts suggest that he didn't say it.

Perhaps this BBC news articleon the film is enough proof of Dahl's hatred of the original 1971 movie. --KindredPhantom (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does Chocolate factory redirect here, and not the R. Kelly album which is ACTUALLY called "Chocolate Factory"? 90.198.66.113 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Book revision - Oompa Loompa ethnicity change

If the book wasn't revised until 1973, who authorized the screenplay in 1970-71 that portrays the Oompa Loompas as round, colorful fantasy creatures? I think the article seems to contradict itself by not clarifying. Reading the article at face value, I would have assumed the movie adaptation in 1971 was true to the original text of the book since the book wasn't revised until 1973.

I think that an encyclopedia article on this book should definitely mention the fact that it had portions re-written and re-illustrated for the 1973 edition that changed the Oompa Loompas from African pygmies to figures with "rosy white skin" from Loompaland.

Article with before/after illustrations under movie fact #11

Paper written on the Oompa Loompa change for a Childrens Literature class

Twelve letters discussing the book, including one from Roald Dahl

I agree, I actually came to the page from another article looking for just that information!--Fluxaviator 09:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added a very brief description of the changes in the 1973 edition in the new book revisions section, feel free to expand on it. Here is the link Eleanor Cameron criticisms in a long essay on children’s literature, along with the response from Roald Dahl.[1]--Fluxaviator 21:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

-The Oompa Loompa ethnicity has a lot of relevance to me as a reader. For more than 9 years, me and my family actually owned (and continue to own) a copy of the first edition of the book where the Oompa Loompas are shown as black people. My brother's copy showed them as the fuzzy people they later gained fame as. We got them simultaneously from a second-hand book sale and I was bewildered (I was in third grade) as to the differences in illustration. I just concluded at that tender age that it was a misprint of the illustrations from another book, a pretty stupid one, as I look back on it, but of course, I was young. Later on, with my increased studies in post-colonial writing and race theory, I began to suspect that the difference in illustrations had something to do with a racial controversy that called for a change in the drawings of the Oompa Loompas. It was only a guess to me though, so I couldnt be conclusive as to that theory. Only recently, as I read about the movie and the book on Wikipedia, were my suspicions confirmed. Now as I look back on it, the idea of owning the original controversial copy begins to seem somewhat fascinating, yet very insidious and almost creepy. But my love for the book (one of my favourites as a child) has never diminished. But I probably wont read exactly in the same way anymore, and I'll probably get a chill down my spine the next time I look at my old "beloved" copy. I mean racism, especially in a children's book, isnt a very pleasant idea. -User: Afghan Historian

Racism or foreign aid? I think Dahl was indicating the latter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Why is it racist? Because it mentions black pigmies that work in a factory? Why is that racist? They're not slaves or anything.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.158.228 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's racist because of the way it portrays the relative roles of different races as masters (all white) and subservients (all black). And Wonka presumably runs the factory and "employs" them (I guess they live and work on-site, 24/7) because it's profitable for him to. He gains from their work. Very generous "aid" indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

....and in return they are given housing and food. They can leave if they want, and according to the book and films, even have health care. I would say that's pretty damn generous employment.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that its not slavery...well i hope that was a joke. From what i remember from the movie, they came from a "horrible" place and were "rescued" by wonka so they could work in the factory (probably in exchange for food and shelter) that sounds like something a guy says to justify slavery. It's not like they just admitted that it was wrong back when they did it, they told themselves (and other probably) that they were saving the people by taking them away from a savage land full of canabalism and barbarism. Honestly that's what came to mind when watching the newest C&TCF movie but finding out that they were originally black pygmies in the book just blew my mind. I don't think its racist though, it could have been a very clever satire of how we justify horrible acts for such empty pleasures (candy, in this case) 174.42.206.246 (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlie unspoiled?

Each of the children pose as an allegory for the various vices found within the personalities of children in those days. Charlie is clearly outlined as the ideal child, humble, kind, and "unspoiled."

Charlie and Grandpa both drink an experimental drink which makes the pair lighter-than-air and causes them to nearly tangle with (in the movie version) a rather vicious looking) ceiling extractor fan. Understandably, this sentence is near here nor there in terms of NPOV as it's simply describing the books views on Charlie, but is Charlie actually unspoiled? MrD 13:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Charlie and Grampa Joe drink the fizzy drink (?) on Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, I believe that in the book, they just described the effects of the beverage but no one actually had some.--Fito 19:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

If my memory holds, this is only present in the movie, not in the book. EvanED 03:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanED (talk • contribs)

Yeah, there is just something fundamentally wrong with Charlie from the first film. Every time I see him say "I fooled you, didn't I?", it scares me. He says it like he's about to kill them.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonka products?

Where is the list of products mentioned as manufactured by Willy Wonka cross-referenced by book and movies? My gods, this is Wikipedia, people, there needs to be a list article for every little thing. —Ashley Y 08:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Wonka Products were around way before the 2005 film. This article suggests that Wonka was brought about afterwards. In fact, wasn't the original film made to market this? Wesker256 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ISBN Numbers

I noticed that RedLightGreen has about 50 different editions of the book listed, most with ISBNs. Should these all be listed in the ISBN section? I added the ISBN for the edition I own. 203.45.114.193 12:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Seven Deadly Sins

The articles on Augustus Gloop, Violet Beauregarde, etc., attempt to identify the four bad children with the seven deadly sins. I think this is silly. For one thing, there are four of them, not seven. For another, the identification doesn't always work. It's trivial to identify Augustus with gluttony and Veruca with greed, but even the author of these sections of the articles isn't sure what to do with Violet.

I think these sections, which are not factual, but represent the literary opinions of the author, should be removed. -- Dominus 03:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but actually they were there to represent the worst qualities of children at the time. But I do think that they do represent the Seven Deadly Sins. As for Violet, I thought her problem was always chewing gum, but she is also obnoxious.- JustPhil 23:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR No Original Research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.80.238 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Violet's sin was Pride. She constant brags about her achievements and is dismissive of her competitors. Obviously has a sense of superiority, etc.

ok, so then what was mike tvs sin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.82.10 (talk • contribs)

Sloth - mhocker

Mike - Lust. Very weak connection I know, but would fall under addiction. Violet - Greed. Wants to win everything. Veruca - Envy. Has to have what everyone else has. Augustus - Gluttony. Quite obvious Weaselboy246 (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Article for Deletion vote on table of differences

Please note, the article Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is being considered for deletion. Any deletion or merging resulting from that, may effect this article. You may wish to visit the AFD page to have input. --rob 18:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Tragic. When I originally read this article with User:Year_2144/Differences_between_book_and_film_versions_of_Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory intact, it was more informative and entertaining. I've read the book and seen both movies. The table reference to differences between the three may hold no new information, but it inspired me a great deal. I believe that those that have seen the movie (or movies) may be moved to read the book from browsing the differences, and to remove this from the main article is a terrible loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cs2750 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The AFD page mentioned resulted in a KEEP decision, but a second AFD resulted in a DELETE decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Differences_between_book_and_film_versions_of_Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.172.226.100 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page needed?

Currently there are 3 pages with the names Charlie and the Chocolate Factory:

1. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 2. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film) 3. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (video game) - I am working on this one at the moment, but it seems to have a lot of potential...

- and lets not mention Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, which a lot of people get confused with... but this wouldn't be on the disambiguation page anyway, would it?

So, what do you think? should there be a disambiguation page for the 3 "charlies" or should it be left as it is? your suggestions please! :) --Rachel Cakes 09:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like one disambig page for all four articles (including 1971 film). Call it Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (disambiguation) since there are to many links to existing article, then show a link at the very first line on all four articles:

• Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
• Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory
• Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film)
• Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (video game)

Some people know there was a 1971 film, but don't realize it had a different name. Often with disambig pages, we list things that are mistakenly known by a name, as means to aid people finding what they're looking for. --rob 10:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like the title Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (disambiguation). thanks for clearing the willy wonka disambig part, up for me. people do get confused between the book, the 1971 film, the 2005 film and the video game, when searching for it on wikipedia, at least. i am surprised there wasn't already a disambiguation page... --Rachel Cakes 12:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Play

I'm pretty sure there is a CatCF book written as a play -- a stage play. Does anyone know where I can find out more about this? --QQQ (11-17-05)

There is a play, a musical called Willy Wonka Junior. It has mainly the same songs as the film, but some scenes are changed, ie the last one, and all of the kids have a song instead of just Veruca. I know, 'cause I'm doing it, lol. :P 75.49.81.148 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)TheRussianLunchLady

Working for Cadbury

Roald Dahl never 'worked' for Cadbury, he simply took part in market research. The article implies that he worked for Cadbury aged 13, and was amazed by the machinery, when in fact, according to the article cited, he just imagined this, as opposed to experiencing it first hand.

Delete the little monsters

Thought you guys might care about the Snozzwangers getting deleted mabey. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snozzwangers 131.7.52.17 21:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there were other fictional creatures listed as well. Why was it deleted exactly and where can I go to get the names and References? FourtySixNtwo 19:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Balancing Spotty Powder

I may have made it too long, but I believe that this section, with a chilling tone, needed to be balanced with the treatment of the other children, who also suffered disturbing fates but turned out all right. While Dahl does show (even in The Great Glass Elevator) characters dying, the deleted section matches the other sections in which the naughty children meet their fates, and this is not something I believe the original section indicated.

Mike Teevee

In light of this "lost chapter" does anyone think perhaps Mike was added in more recently than the original version? He seems quite anachronistic... Back in the 60s there was barely any TV to watch at all, just like one cowboy show and that was all... and while a lot of people tune in obsessively at that one time period every day, that was it. Broadcast was over for the day, if I remember my history correctly. I don't think they even abbreviated it "T.V." at the time. Perhaps I'm wrong and that was more indicative of the 50s? Either way it always struck me as odd that the kids' vices are so unbalanced. Being spoiled and gluttonous are surely several orders of magnitude worse than habitually chewing gum and enjoying Howdy Doody. Of course, in the end, the thing that does them in is all the same thing.. being way too uncareful and blundering into an easily-avoidable death trap. I wonder what Dahl would have to say about the warning labels they put on things these days? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

• Well, Roald Dahl was ahead of his time, then! Not050 (talk)Not050Not050 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Seven deadly sins

I noticed statements in this article and those on each of the children, linking them to the seven deadly sins. This reads like someone random person's speculation (especially in the use of words like "seems" and "appears"). These observations will need to be sourced reliably, or removed. WP:NOT for rubbishy fan-theory speculation.--Drat (Talk) 06:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I said much the same thing in 2005, but the comments were accidentally deleted. I have restored them above. -- Dominus (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cadbury's = Will Wonka's chocolate factory

I'm not surprised Roald Dahl was inspired by the Cadbury's chocolate factory. I worked at their Bournville factory many years ago and when I later read the book I always thought it seemed just like the Cadbury's factory I use to work in where weird and wonderful machines would constantly swirl around in unusual and often seemingly unnecessary ways. Though, I never saw a chocolate river, unfortunatly.

Considering he lived nearby, Cadbury's probably was his inspiration for the book. Also, just like with Willy Wonka in the book, it is also pretty undisputed that Cadbury's make the worlds tastiest chocolate!

Synopsis

Have done a small re-structure, entering the sub-title "synopsis". Previously this section flowed on as part of the introduction which wasn't really appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Charlie's Chocolate Boy"

As I was looking through my Willy Wonka Junior script, I noticed that there was nothing on Wikipedia about the original drafts of the book. The play isn't that famous, so there isn't an article on it. PLEASE DON'T DELETE IT, it has some backround on the original idea for the novel that isn't anywhere here on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.81.148 (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2008 75.32.107.110 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC) TheRussianLunchLady

NPOV

I modified a sentence that implied the 2005 remake was more faithful to the book than the earlier film. This seemed POV, and had no citation or reference to back it up. If it can be proved there is consensus for the statement, then it should be put back in but as far as I have been able to determine (from film review sites) neither film is considered to be completely faithful to the written work (or appreciably "more" faithful than the other). 64.172.226.100 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the second film is closer to the original. In the original book, Wonka's hair is brown. Also, the book doesn't include anything about fizzy lifting drinks or Slugworth except for a small blip. However, you could counter that with the fact that there isn't anything about Wonka's backround in the first book. It's up to debate, but I personally think that the first one is better, while the second one is closer to the book. 75.32.107.110 (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC) TheRussianLunchLady

What's Kongerevyen 1930???

Okay, I was on IMDB, and I looked up the character "Willy Wonka" and found there was some film from 1930 called, "Kongerevyen 1930." WHAT IS THIS??? It sayed the characters were the same as in the books and movies, but isn't that impossible because the book was written in 1964? It's some Danish film. WHAT IS THIS??? 75.39.216.100 (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)TheRussianLunchLady

Synopsis part

Reckon that it should be in past tense rather than present tense; this is novel... --125.24.91.248 (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-racist revision? When?

"...regarding the original portrayal of the Oompa-Loompas as black pygmies, although Dahl did revise this later."

What's the citation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.15.140 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Added information

I had a script to Willy Wonka with some added information about the book, but someone keeps deleting it. Who is doing it? I can verify it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.45.248 (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Two suggestions for additions:

(i) a link to the story of the early drafts of the book: http://www.roalddahlmuseum.org/uploads/Charlie%20and%20the%20Chocolate%20fact.pdf

(ii) the Puffin Post reprint of the "Lost Chapter" (which apparently originally appeared in its pages in 1973, 32 years before the Times published it "for the first time"): http://www.puffinpost.co.uk/ppost/island/images/Dahl.pdf

Bonsaman Bonsaman (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I've run across two - though there are likely more - articles dedicated to the characters (Violet Beauregarde, Veruca Salt). These articles aren't sourced, so there's no indication that they are individually noteworthy. I suggest we condense each of the articles into their key points and merge them with this one. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw the redirect but didn't see any of the information in the Violet Beauregarde article merged into this article. Perhaps I missed something? I'm reverting the redirect. The individual character articles have useful information, I think they merit their own pages. Perhaps I'm mistaken, can other editors chime in? 12.231.43.220 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm changing your revert back. The merge tag has been up for weeks without objection. Basically the article contained zero sourced information, so there's nothing to merge. If you'd like to add information to this article, help yourself, but the other article has no business existing in Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Violet Beauregarde and Veruca Salt

in case yall didnt know, two of the character articles, Violet Beauregarde and Veruca Salt were nominated for deletion. against objections from me and others, the result of the afd was to merge them here. the nominator has stated that he will nominate the other character articles. if you care, please weigh in when you see them come up for deletion. i thought the salt and beauregarde articles were well thought out and informative and i am sorry to see them go. Badmachine (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The same thing happened to Charlie Bucket, Augustus Gloop and Mike Teavee ----- Why were these articles deleted yet Prince Pondicherry's still exists and he only appeas for like 2 minutes in the film?!!

It's just an oversight. Rklawton (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What does oversight mean?