MovieChat Forums > Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) Discussion > Charlie in this is Just such a dick!!

Charlie in this is Just such a dick!!

posted 8 years ago by KristenStewartForever
17 replies | jump to latest

It's not that Charlie is more mature or that he's more intelligent than we'd expect him to be. It's that he's more...GOOD!! UGH!! I hate people who are simply good all the way. It's like they took his personality traits from the book and made him more extroverted about that. He's like that kid in class who reminds the teacher she forgot to assign homework. Nobody likes that kid. He's always wanting to do the right thing. He's so sanctimonious. This kid is a freaking saint in this movie! This kid could tryout for Jesus! Especially in that scene where he wins the golden ticket, gets his family all excited, especially Grandpa Joe about the chance of visiting the chocolate factory, but then out of nowhere announces that he's going to sell the ticket because it's the responsible thing to do. Gross!

First of all, no little kid's gonna act like that. Secondly, this character trait is not the least bit endearing. It does exemplify his goodness. It makes me wanna smack him upside the head for being such a colossal Jerk. This kid should feel like an absolute prick.

Aside from Charlie, I love this movie better than the original (especially Wonka).

But OMG, this kid is such a dick! I Just wanna smack him. He's a freaking saint. Kids want to do bad things sometimes. This kid once again could tryout for Jesus. I mean, okay, this Charlie is closer to the book version, like almost everything in this film is, but he's a freaking boy scout, always wanting to do the right thing.

My wife is like him too and I swear I Just...ugh...I hate it.

[–] Magic93 8 years ago

Right, I agree, and this is why the 1971 film's Charlie is superior. The Slugworth plot works to give Charlie a story arc, instead of him just being generic goody-two-shoes kid the entire movie with no personality.

Sometimes following the book 100% is not always good. Books and movies are different beasts.

Aside from Charlie, I love this movie better than the original (especially Wonka).

You're definitely in the minority for liking Depp's Wonka more than Gene Wilder's. Can I ask, what is it you like about Depp's portrayal? It isn't any closer to the book's character, and Depp himself said he based it on... wait for it... a stoned George W. Bush. He comes off as a creepy pedophile who can't even button his own shirt, not an adult owner of a chocolate factory.

_____
The WiFi password is "Mother"

[–] KristenStewartForever 8 years ago

Because Depp's Wonka IS closer to the book. This entire film is much closer to Dahl's book. Not the Wilder version. The Wilder version they pulled waaaay too far from the book. Wonka is not this kind, gay, different language speaking, poem reciting gentleman. He's crazy. He's out of his mind. He's a boogeyman. I was never scared of Wilder as Wonka. He was too loveable. Wonka is not written loveable. He is written to be frightening. Depp's Wonka was not only nuts, but scary as well. I'd be scared to death to be in that guy's factory. He was more boogeyman like. Wilder was the safe madman which is not what Dahl wrote. Dahl in fact hated the Wilder version. Yes, I know, they put too much emphasis on Wonka and not enough on Charlie, but there's more reasons than that. All I know is that the Tim Burton film is better because it's more faithful to the book. Just Charlie is the only part NOT good. And I don't care if Depp played him unlike other Wonkas. That's what made him great. It was different. I mean, after a while, you grow tired of seeing different actors play him the same way. Whenever, you see Wonka done on stage or wherever, they are played the way Wilder did it. Depp did it very different, which is what made him really good in the role. And once again, that's how he was written in the book.

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

[–] uruseiranma 8 years ago

Dahl's original book, Charlie himself is also pretty 'bland.' And it literally is that he is 'the last one left,' which is why he wins in the book.

Though most people are like, 'Oh, so what if he broke rules, he gave the gobstopper back.'

Plus, even the 71's Grandpa Joe' was just like, 'so what if we broke the rules? My Grandson deserves that chocolate you inhuman monster!!'

"Thanks, guys." "So long, partner."

- Toy Story 3 (9/10)

[–] KristenStewartForever 8 years ago

I agree. But that doesn't make the original closer to the book.

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

[–] fibrowarrior89 8 years ago

While I do love the original. The original Charlie and his grandfather were two parts of it that I really couldn't stand. I found Freddy to be a much sweeter and more enjoyable Charlie to watch.

[–] brodee (467) 3 years ago

Yeah, you obviously never read the book. The film does follow the book somewhat more closely than Dahl's screenplay did, but it goes off the rails and just starts fleshing out characters in ways they don't need to be fleshed out. Willy Wonka was never "a boogyman" and not at all scary (which toy would know if you actually read the book instead of just assuming that just because you heard the movie was closer to the book that it was.)

READ the book, Wonka isn't the insane one, it's everyone else who is insane. Everything Wonka does works out, it's when other people get involved that the problems start happening. Remember, DAHL wrote that screenplay... it was DAHL's own vision. When Wonka tells you two holes are better than one, you should listen to him! This is Wonka's world, not Charlie's.

[–] Wombstar 8 years ago

It's that he's more...GOOD!! UGH!! I hate people who are simply good all the way.

Somebody hasn't read the book. That's exactly how he was written and was meant to be.
That's what makes him special and different to the other kids. Unlike the old movie where he's just as bad, selfish and moaning.

[–] KristenStewartForever 7 years ago

Not true. He was not written to be a SAINT.

[–] arkayenether 8 years ago

Dahl didn't write realistic characters. He wrote one note flat characters with nothing human to them

[–] orange_yellow 8 years ago

He wrote over the top characters. That was his style. They didn't need to be al three dimentional. Fairytail characters are two dimentional also. It's about the idea and the message. Also childrens books are short, you dont have the time.

- Musn't be afraid to dream a little bigger darling -

[–] kramsey20 7 years ago

It might be closer to the book than the '71 original, but that doesn't make it better.

Charlie '71 beats Charlie '05 by a mile, and here's why: The Charlie of the original film is written like an actual kid. Does the best he can, means well but screws up from time to time but that doesn't make him a bad egg. It makes him human. He sneaks a sip of Fizzy Lifting Drink and pockets an Everlasting Gobstopper, but here's the part that matters: He admits to it, apologizes and returns what he stole. Something none of the other kids would have done. He proves his worth to Wonka and that he can be trusted with the factory while Charlie '05 only wins because he happens to be the last kid standing. As you said, Highmore's Charlie is such a saint that he could try out for Jesus and probably get the role. To me, a character who learns from his mistakes is a far more interesting character than one who doesn't make any mistakes to begin with. Charlie '71 doesn't just get handed the factory by default, he earns that ride in the Wonkavator.

Charlie '71 is a great kid, but he isn't perfect. He is therefore more relatable because he is more real. He does his best, but he does stumble just like the rest of us do. Je suis Charlie Bucket.

[–] KristenStewartForever 7 years ago

I agree to all that about Charlie. But this version of the story is better. Fact.

[–] ladyjay0786 7 years ago

Like someone else said, we get it that you don't like the original. But it is not a FACT that Depp's version is better. That's YOUR OPINION.

[–] movienchill31 (222) 4 years ago

I agree! I don't care how close to the book 05 version is, 1971 version was the better version. Storywise and characterwise. The backstory of Wonka added nothing to the story. Just made it creepier. The Slugworth plot did add to the story because it showed that Charlie was human and made a mistake, while the 05 remake paints him out to be the perfect child who does no wrong.

[–] strntz (10790) 4 years ago

He sneaks a sip of Fizzy Lifting Drink and pockets an Everlasting Gobstopper..

Officer, I didn't rob the cash register, I *sneaked* some money out..

The language doesn't change anything. Charlie '71 did indeed steal a fizzy drink, and what he did was on the same level as the rest of the kids if you think about it. Sure he was a good kid, which is why the writing of Charlie '71 stealing a drink is so clunky. He rolls his eyes as the other kids disobey Willie when they see something that interests them, yet Charlie acts the same way when *he* sees something that interests him.

The only difference is that Charlie was not caught and punished as the others were and, more importantly, was given the opportunity to make good where the other kids were not. Clunky writing.

Now, it's likely the other kids felt little or no remorse over what they did but that's not really the point. The original went off the rails with Charlie and Grandpa stealing the drinks.

Also, Charlie did NOT steal a Gobstopper. Willie gave each kid a Gobstopper warning them not to give one to Slugworth, who would then copy it and sell them himself. Apparently, Slugworth was unable to go to a store and buy one...

What Charlie did that was "noble" was not turn the Gobstopper over to Slugworth which we presume the other kids would have for money Slugworth offered them.

[–] movienchill31 (222) 3 years ago

He was caught! Wonka tells them that they stole fizzy lifting drinks so they get NOTHING!

[–] lemonhead1 (410) 3 years ago

Yeah, it's unheard of for a child to have manners, now, isn't it?!