No wonder Roald Dahl hated the movie


The movie made some main changes in Charlie and his family and so I can see why Roald Dahl hated the book. In the book Charlie's dad was alive and worked as a toothpaste cap screwer, he would screw caps onto toothpaste tubes in a factory. Also though, most importantly Charlie did not break any rules by stealing a drink of Wonka Lift and Grandpa Joe was not a jerk as people have pointed out on this board and he didn't entice Charlie to steal the Wonka Lift like he did in the movie. Charlie was supposed to be the good guy and that's how Roald Dahl made him out to be in the book. It was only the other children who broke rules and got in trouble for doing so and while in the movie Wonka tells Charlie that they will all be restored in the book it describes the bad children having been restored, somewhat, while Charlie is flying overhead with Wonka and Grandpa Joe in the glass elevator. Also even though the children broke rules they nonetheless do get their lifetime supply of chocolate in the book. Wonka does not yell at Charlie telling him he lost since Charlie did nothing wrong so its no wonder Roald Dahl hated the movie, it deviated from some important stuff in the book.

reply

A lot of what you say is true. Add to this Dahl didn't approve of Wilder in the part of Wonka. He wanted Spike Milligan.
Personally, I like Wilder in the role, but hey, it was Dahls creation and I suppose he imagined him very differently. Also, I don't think Dahl liked the musical aspect of the movie.

You're old enough to kill, but not for voting....

reply

No one should kill.

reply

Personally, I often felt Sammy Davis Jr. would have been a good Willie Wonka (his performance of "The Candy Man" was a super hit!!!).

reply


I never considered that possibility, but that's an interesting thought. I think though that a rewrite would have been necessary to encompass the bigger scope of talent that Davis Jr. would have brought.

reply

You could argue that the Johnny Depp one was closer to the book. I suppose this is true to a point, but I reread the book and there is nothing about Willy Wonka going to find his dad, a dentist, who abandoned him as a kid, nor refusing to bring his family.

reply

[deleted]

Every point you made illustrates how much better the film is than the book.

reply

Another change from book to film was Veruca's punishment. In the movie she was a "bad egg" and went down the cute landing in garbage. In the book she was attacked by squirrels and then forced down the chute.
Also, we never see the kids after their punishments so we are left wondering what happened to them. In the book they are seen by Charlie walking out of the factory, although they are altered and a mess. Even though I like the 1971 movie better, the Tim Burton version followed the book almost exactly.

reply

the Tim Burton version followed the book almost exactly.
Much easier to do when you have the technology.

Hey! You're not old enough to drink! Now go and die for your country!!!

reply

Tim Burton's version is better

reply

And you've been smoking too much pot.

reply

Shut the hell up. My word is law. Final.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

reply

Ooh tension, one day you'll grow out of Kristen Stewart and see her as the same-emotion, expressionless teen she always plays.

reply

She's such a cutie!

reply

She's such a cutie!

reply

I don't remember the book having Wonka force Charlie to choose between the factory or his family.

How you can make the world a better place:
Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

reply

ermm no The Christopher Lee Cameo was the best thing about it

reply

except the part where he goes to find his dad Christopher Walken

reply

I was trying to figure how her landing was cute. Got it now.

reply

When I watched this as a kid they were seen leaving the factory, it seems to have been cut from the modern edit.

reply

[deleted]

I read somewhere that the reason they eliminated Charlie's father in the movie was because in the book he was pretty much a nothing character (which is true), and that by removing him, Wonka becomes more of a father figure to Charlie. Even in the remake, they could have done without the father and it wouldn't have hurt the movie.

reply

has been said Dahl would have prefered Burton's film; another difference in the book was Wonka was not deceitful- limping out & then summmersulting. Also, oompa loompas werent orange in book- where they?

reply

Yeah in the new movie he was boring, and boring. Gene Wilder for the win, sorry.

reply

No. Johnny Depp for the win. Sorry nothing. I say final. Johnny Depp. Much closer to Roald Dahl's story. Gene Wilder was too nice and way to lovable. Why do you think Dahl hated it so much? I mean, no, it's not the only reason but still. Wonka is not written lovable. He is frightening, boogeyman-like. That's what Johnny Depp was like. He scared me. Wilder did not.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

reply

Good for you, that's why I liked Wilder better. I love Johnny but he was terrible in the role, the role belongs to Gene, and for the record, I don't give a hoot what Roald Dahl thinks. Wilder was the best, why do you think most people liked him better? I wouldn't expect you to know a good actor being that you like Kristen Stewart. I bet you think Zathura was better than Jumanji because it had her right? Lol

reply

Much closer to Roald Dahl's story.


I'm sorry but this is a poor argument for adaptations. Some of the best adaptations feature character and story changes that just plain work better on the screen. The Bourne films bear little resemblance to the books and those are fantastic. Wilder building Wonka up as a character and give him more depth and layers than even Dahl did was a sight to behold in this film.

Just because it was different than the source material, doesn't mean it was a bad interpretation. Acting is choices. Some are good, and some are better. Wilder made the better choices.

I don't know if you're aware of this but I've already changed things. I killed Ben Linus.
--Sayid

reply

He scared you? How old are you?

reply

Okay,fair enough. Depp as chameleon Rango in that other film scared me (even though Burton had absolutely notihng to do wih it.)

reply

He also would have hated James and the Giant Peach. ugh.!

reply

I am sick of this crap about how the movie deviates from the book. You have to judge movie on its own merit. I never read the book and love the movie. It is genius. No WAY I would like book better. And the remake?..... Don't need to see it. They ruin remakes with story changes and too much backstory that does not add anything good to the movie. Watch the remake of the original or the film that started the slasher genre , black Christmas and you'll see.

reply

The Johnny Depp version is NOT a remake. It Just another interpretation of Roald Dahl's book. About is BETTER because it is more like the book.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

reply

If it's not a remake then why did they copy some parts that were only in the 1971 film and not the book? Oops! Ruins your little pet theory.

_____
The WiFi password is "Mother"

reply

They don't. That's bull. There is not one scene in the Tim Burton film referencing the 1971 film. Not one. It is all following the book. Yes, they added stuff. Such as the backstory for Wonka storyline, and stuff, but nothing of the Gene Wilder version. It's not a remake. Final. Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, they all confirmed it. It is meant to be another version of the story. Not a remake. They wanted to make it as unlike the Gene Wilder version as they possibly could and they succeeded. So zip it. I'm final.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

reply

Nope, just because a movie is closer to the book, that doesn't mean it's a better movie. Look at Planet of the Apes 69 vs Planet of the Apes 2001. One is much closer to the book and whoops, that movie sucks ass.

The book really isn't that good. None of Dahls books were very good. He wrote characters very flat and inhuman. Charlie was an unrealistic perfect little angel that could not possibly exist in the real world.

reply

Fair enough (and your comments are CORRECT THIS time, no way a remake, still Gene for me.) Every Burton film was deja vu. If he did cartoons hell Depp would be the Mel Blanc of Burton, doing all males while Helena Bonham Carter as all female (think if WB, one of his homes along with Disney, WB does a Porky Pig film, it would a unqiue blending of "multi voice work" and "celeb" work--Tim Burton coul;d have Johnny Depp doing all of the late Mel Blanc's, and H.B.Carter in stead of June Foray et all for females in a Porky and Petunia movie..rolleyes..and the WB shiel;d woiuld be freaky sounding.)

reply

Dahl was an as#hole. So they didn't do his book the way he wanted. They made something great. You can be pissed your work wasn't made, but that doesn't magically make the work bad.

Dahl was most likely 99% butthurt because he was a Hollywood wannabe and this iteration didn't do his ego justice in that regard. Reminds me of other authors like F. Scott Fitzgerald who struggled to get into Hollywood, finding themselves relegated to part writers for films they had little say in.

reply

The book was much more vague as. I do not think the parents of the other kids were developed as much as they were in the movies. For example, the genders are switched for some of them.

Dahl's book's were not perfect. In fact, his sequel Through the Looking Glass was garbage. This would have been the perfect movie to do a movie sequel, but there was Dahl's book and it was so bad that they were in a predicament....redo the story entirely or make a weird movie nothing like the first story that likely would have bombed.


...............ZING!

reply

"In fact, his sequel Through the Looking Glass was garbage. "

Now is that just bad memory, or did you read the wrong book?

"Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There" is the sequel to "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll.

Dahl's sequel was "Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator" ...



http://leslie-special.info In appreciation of The Great Race.

reply

 

The Spikeopath - Hospital Number 217

reply

His way was right. How the author wants it is the way it should be. Their books are written a specific way for a reason. Not for some stupid Hollywood people to come and say "No, this sucks. We're changing it." He was right. So was P.L. Travers with Mary Poppins. The authors write their stories a certain way for a reason. Fact.

I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.

reply

Tim scared too many kids. Scared the chocolate out of them (making a sick flavour for Veruca Salt or August Gloop to try and steal).

On a side note, the real Violet, Denise Nickerson had yesterday, an April Fool's birthday!

See her entry, I wrote that one birthday wish.Type her name in.

reply

Just like the last two John Lee Hancock ("Blind Side"*) films, Pamela L.Travers in "Saving Mr.Banks", and the McDonald Brothers, Mack/Maurice and Richard McDonald in "The Founder". They gave in in order to save their souls even if it meant that Walt Disney and Ray Kroc might have the last laugh..

*Blinde Side..now KristenStewartForever, Sandra Bullock, that's one I'd really love to perform with LOL.

reply