MovieChat Forums > Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) Discussion > This movie is NOT true to the book

This movie is NOT true to the book

posted 3 years ago by brodee (467)
10 replies | jump to latest

I know it has been paraded around as being truer than Roald Dahl's own screenplay... but it really isn't. Instead it brings back a few scenes that were cut and adds in loads of extra crap that was never welcomed.

First, the book takes place in the 60's... starting off with modernized factories and more CGI than substance well...

Charlie did NOT offer to sell his ticket because the family was starving in the book. (Charlie is really not as big of a goody two shoes in the book as he is in the movie. He also isn't an idiot who doesn't know that in London they use Pounds not Dollars)

And of course, Mike TeVee was certainly not a savant, Violet was not a power tripping feminist, (and of course all of the added backstory for Wonka never happened)

Wonka really is a completely different character than the book. So different that while the movie was fine following the lines for the children, wonka's lines are changed completely. Anyone who has actually READ the books would realize that it is WONKA's world and you all are just living in it. He isn't meant to be scary or insane, he's the deus ex machina of the world and whatever he says goes.

Yeah, the children were intentionally made even worse than they actually were in the book (again, no one who has READ the book could think this movie is anything like it). To make Charlie look more like a goody two shoes (which in the book, charlie wasn't... he was just a boy without the faults of the others.)

In fact, dahl was very specific about these faults so the changes to the children to make them seem more rotten by adding in more faults (Mike TeVee being destructive rather than a brain dead child who spent all his time watching TV instead of learning), (Violet being a "better than thou" instead of just having an obsession with gum).

Yeah... the modernization is not welcome at all. It's completely changing Wonka's character just to be more hip with the 2005 kids. Wonka was never "hip"

And what the hell is with the note cards?

Hell, all the modernization makes it even more confusing why Mr. Salt uses women to shell nuts when he talks about selling Wonka a Havermax 4000. Of course Wonka, now a completely different character, PRETENDS to not be able to find a key (never happened in the book) so he can relish in Veruca's punishment. Nevermind how easy it would be to hop over the gate for someone as spry as wonka is supposed to be.

[–] Anotherday (6728) 3 years ago

Honestly, it doesn't matter if it's true to the book or not.

The movie was utter trash. Had it been close to the book, that wouldn't have stopped burton from making it so ugly. His style works from time to time. It certainly didn't here.

[–] brodee (467) 3 years ago

Burton wanted to make Wonka way way darker than he actually was. Sure, Wilder is too cheerful but Wonka is not a dark character. Indifferent yes, bored with the rotten kids, yes... but not this creepy pedophile sociopath.

What gets me is how much people say this is truer to the book when it really isn't, if anything it's farther off. Have been watching it while checking the scenes in the book and while before the factory things were followed mostly the same once the factory starts Burton decided it was "time to change everything."

Wonka lives in a magical world, where elevators are lifted by sky hooks. Where there are square roots on trees (Great Glass Elevator). It isn't that wonka is supposed to be insane, it's that he is a genius who creates the most extraordinary creations.

[–] Anotherday (6728) 3 years ago

That's my general issue with Burton. His Dark esthetic works in his own properties, bit not for a lot of work created by others.

As for Willy Wonka, I prefer the original movie. It may not be like the book, but it is still a good movie.

People are just saying Burton's movie is closer because of a few aspects he put in. That doesn't make it watchable.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

For the most part it is faithful to the book in terms of storyline and the liberties it takes to be different to the book that inspired it (as well as the original 1971 film) are minor. However a major invention that was evidently not in the book is the father of Wonka who may or may not be the triggering factor in the whole story of Wonka in terms of why Wonka is the way he is both in terms of candymaking and his seeming weariness of children until the end of the film of course where Charlie reunites him with his father resulting in Wonka overturning the decision of not allowing Charlie's family to live with him in the factory and thus the entire Wonka family comes to live in the factory

[–] brodee (467) 3 years ago

Minor? Every character in the movie got a complete makeover. Minor differences would be whether Wonka's ship was made out of candy or wood (something people who pretend to have read the book complain about.) Wonka's new aversion to "parents" completely changes him into some demented pedophile type character. The movie is significantly less faithful to the book if you'd bother to read the book. Charlie's family gets picked up in the sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator (which I recommend) and Wonka NEVER HAD A PROBLEM with any of them. Though they got into some misadventures.

[–] PaladinNJ (20307) 3 years ago

Neither movie was 100% true to the source material. But they worked with what they had.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

Yeah but this film is usually regarded as a "truer" adaptation, which is, as everyone can see, just bullshit advertising that continues to persist in discussions and retroactive references these films.

[–] contreras (458) 3 years ago

Still truer than the first film. The oompa loompa change is a way bigger crime.

[–] PaladinNJ (20307) 2 years ago

Which movie?

[–] gcarras (2726) a year ago

Very good point. I much prefer the 1971 original thsat I saw then at drive ins..