why no Fizzy Lifting Drinks? - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) Discussion

[–] strntz (10790) 6 years ago

One of the things this movie corrected. Every other of the spoiled kids disobeyed Willie and got into trouble as a result. Why have Charlie and Uncle Joe do exactly the same thing and completely disobey a direct order?

Dumb scene in the first movie that made no sense. Also, Charlie didn't steal in the book either.

reply

[–] twinA (4826) 5 years ago

I guess to show that even "good" kids can do dumb things.

After the fizzy drinks shenanigan, it's likely those involved in the 1971 film adaption wanted to display that Charlie was still deserving despite what he had done.

This makes him more relatable to everyone in the audience, especially children. Given the passage of time since Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory's release, those who sympathized with Charlie as children now have something in common with his grandpa.

~~/o/

reply

[–] hyperjet (633) 5 years ago

Well yes. If Charlie hadn't given into his Gramps and didn't try the fizzy drink, then he would have just been a perfect wooden little boy like the Charlie in the 2005 film. No kid is perfect, and he was given the chance to redeem himself (and break the hold of his selfish grandpa) at the end which gave the 1971 film a whole wonderful new dimension. Besides, Charlie was the only kid on the tour who was dirt poor and wasn't a spoiled brat. I'm sure Wonka expected him to break a rule so he could complete his test (we know he wanted Charlie all along).

reply

[–] twinA (4826) 5 years ago

When the moment of truth comes, the bewildered look on Willy Wonka's face at Charlie suggests that he saw a lot of himself in the boy.

Even if it wasn't a test and Wonka's reaction was real, he realized he was being hypocritical towards himself.

~~/o/

reply

[–] strntz (10790) 5 years ago

Wow, were you guys raised by wolves?

There is no way on Earth I would have stolen the fizzy lifting drinks at all, but most particularly after having watched what happened to the other kids who directly disobeyed Willie.

The screenwriter wanted the scene at the end where it looks like Charlie was cut out of the big prize but still didn't didn't hand over the gobstopper - a scene that wasn't in the book.

Unfortunately, the only way they could do this is to have Charlie be a thief like the other kids so Willie would have a reason to deny him.

It just didn't work.

reply

[–] Patman111196 (1225) 5 years ago

The fizzy lifting drinks were not in the book. This movie was meant to be a much more faithful adaption to the book, unlike 1971 version which had a lot of stuff not in the book.

reply

[–] SisterSuzy101 (349) 5 years ago

This adaptation isn't that faithful either, regardless of what Depp or Burton have tried to promote it as. Sure, the 1971 film had the Slugworth subplot and gave Charlie flaws (nothing wrong with that, imperfections make characters more likable and relatable), but the remake added a pointless backstory involving Wonka's Daddy issues and made him a petulant man-child instead of eccentric and mysterious.

reply

[–] strntz (10790) 5 years ago

I'm 61 and grew up on the '71 Willie Wonka film. In general, I dislike remakes.

I love this one. I didn't really care about scenes in the film not being in the book, but I NEVER understood why Charlie and Grandpa Joe would steal the fizzy lifting drinks despite Willie's direct order not to. I mean, if they wanted that moment where Charlie would turn over the gobstopper to Willie instead of taking Slugworth's money to prove his worth, they could have written a scene where it *looked* like Charlie did something wrong, didn't, and still did the right thing by not selling out Willie to Slugworth.

I also *like* the back story of Willie and his dad. Remakes should differ by more than just actors and updates in special effects.

reply

[–] SisterSuzy101 (349) 5 years ago

"I also *like* the back story of Willie and his dad. Remakes should differ by more than just actors and updates in special effects."

I agree with the second part, especially as a fair few remakes (Psycho 1998, Disney's live-action remakes etc.) fail by being shot by shot, and only updating technical specs. However, if you payed closer attention you'll realize that that's NOT the reason I and many others have a problem with the added back story. If you have to ask why, you'll never know.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7395) 5 years ago

I understand why. Because you want Wonka to be Mysterious like the book. I can understand but I actually liked them adding in his backstory.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

It absolutely isn't more faithful to the book. Everyone who says that, hasn't read the book.

reply

[–] movienchill31 (222) 4 years ago

From my understanding that wasn't in the book and the remake tried to stick closer to the book than the older film. They still failed IMO when they included that whack backstory of Wonka and his daddy issues! Added nothing to the story. Just made it even weirder. The Fizzy lifting drinks added to the story because it made Charlie not so perfect but in the end he makes up for his mistake by giving the Gobstopper back to Wonka.

reply

[–] strntz (10790) 4 years ago

The Fizzy lifting drinks added to the story because it made Charlie not so perfect but in the end he makes up for his mistake by giving the Gobstopper back to Wonka.

The other kids weren't so perfect either. They made the same mistakes as Charlie did, but unlike Charlie, were caught and punished by circumstance. They weren't given the opportunity to make up for their mistakes. Making Charlie just as disrespectful as the other kids is why the fizzy sub plot doesn't work.

reply

[–] movienchill31 (222) 4 years ago

They weren't perfect but they were also not good at heart like Charlie was. Ever heard of first impressions is a lasting impression? Well Wonka already peeped game before the tour even began. He noticed the behaviors of each and every child so yes they weren't perfect but they already showed their true colors before the "tests" even began. That's the point. Charlie had a good heart even though he lied and stole fizzy lifting drinks. He proved that when he gave back the EGS.

reply

[–] strntz (10790) 4 years ago

Yeah, but then the whole story of showing the kids through the factory in order to select an heir doesn't work.

reply

[–] movienchill31 (222) 4 years ago

Yes it does. They ultimately had to prove themselves and the majority failed! Charlie didn't! That was the whole point of the Slugworth storyline. Wonka knew that if given the opportunity the other children would have sold him out to Slugworth over the EGS. Even Veruca had her hand crossed behind her back when Wonka asked them to promise not to tell the secret of the EGS.

reply

[–] strntz (10790) 4 years ago

It doesn't change the fact that Charlie directly disobeyed Willie and stole the drinks in this version. The other kids were no worse, just that they got caught. The whole point of the factory tour in the original story is that Charlie would stand out as the obedient child of the group. This version changed that.

The other kids also weren't given the opportunity to make good like Charlie did. If Willie was such a good judge of character, then he wouldn't have brought the kids to the factory. He also could have used Wilkinsonn to investigate Charlie or any other deserving child directly.

reply

[–] movienchill31 (222) 4 years ago

Let's agree to disagree. Like I stated even though Charlie and Grandpa stole the drinks, Charlie PROVED that he had a good heart, something the other kids didn't. Doesn't matter if the other kids didn't have the same chance as Charlie. Do you really think that if Veruca was the last one standing and Wonka told her she lost and didn't get the lifetime supply of chocolate that she would give back the EGS? No she would have sold it to Slugworth which was the whole point of the SL.

reply

[–] strntz (10790) 4 years ago

I don't have any illusion of changing your mind :)

I get it that the writers wanted that scene where it looked like Charlie got screwed out of the lifetime chocolate but didn't sell Willie out to show what a good honest person Charlie was. Fine. The problem was that in order to accomplish that, they had to have Charlie steal the drink first, and that's what is clunky and unnecessary and why Dahl didn't write it that way. It also required Willie to be a total dick to Charlie. More clunky writing.

If they wanted that scene, they could have come up with a scene where Charlie got blamed for something he *didn't* do. Although Wonka would have still had to be a dick, at least Charlie wouldn't be a thief.

Also, Charlie didn't need to hand back the Gobstopper at all as it was a gift from Willie to *all* the kids, which was yet another thing clunky about that rewrite. It's assumed that at least some of the other kids *did* attempt to sell the EGS to Slugworth anyway, who would have only needed one to examine. Charlie could have kept it for himself and not given it to Slugworth. Further, if the EGS was such an important state secret that needed to be so closely guarded, what logical reason would Willie have to hand them out to kids he didn't even know?

reply

[–] movienchill31 (222) 4 years ago

Honestly the remake didn't stick to Dahl's story either! I could careless how Dahl wrote. I completely understand the way the story was written! Like I said earlier Wonka already saw what he was dealing with before the tour even began so the rest of the story is of no surprise.

reply