All The Tropes

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/Headscratchers (view source)

Revision as of 04:27, 7 August 2017

2 bytes removed ,  6 years ago
m
clean up, replaced: Big Lipped Alligator Moment → Non Sequitur Scene
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m (clean up, replaced: Big Lipped Alligator Moment → Non Sequitur Scene)
Line 20:
**** You realize you're talking about the same man who invented a (flawed but still working) teleportation device, an elixir of youth in pill form, exploding confectionery, the everlasting gobstopper, a not-quite-perfect food-in-gum format, a food to regrow hair (also not quite perfect but still)... if Wonka wanted to set something up, Wonka could set something up.
**** What's more, he MEANT the teleporter to be flawed. Hey, hang on, what if Wonka actually had the inventions perfect but modified them to teach the kids a lesson?
**** The chocolate bar was random. The shop was not--therenot—there only seems to be one in Charlie's area. And the time was not--Charlienot—Charlie could only get a chocolate bar when he or his family could afford one, which was very rarely, and he could afford that one because someone had dropped cash in the street and left it there. Still [[Gambit Roulette]], at least for that ticket, but maybe worth the risk for Mr. Wonka--especiallyWonka—especially since Charlie found it the day before the tour. Imagine what would've happened if only the first four tickets had been found in time...
**** He could have got a stooge to plant the winning bars. Maybe even the shopkeeper was in on it. The first film even has his agent on hand to meet the winners with the Secret Test of Character; he must have known where they'd be. And the cover of a phony ticket, conveniently exposed as a fake just as Charlie found his.
**** In the Gene Wilder movie, the final ticket's discovery ''must'' have been rigged. How else could Slugworth have been in the right place at the right time to tempt Charlie ''on his way home from finding the ticket?'' The other kids were already on the news when he approached them, but not Charlie.
***** In the 1971 film, at least, Slugworth/Wilkinson was talking to Veruca within seconds of her grabbing the ticket from the factory worker.
****** Mr. Salt had bought about a million chocolate bars, so Mr. S/W was probably on the alert for Veruca already.
**** Charlie's discovery of the ticket very could have been rigged in the old movie--Charliemovie—Charlie didn't pick out the bar that contained the Golden Ticket; the store owner (Bill) picked it out for him and said "Why not try a regular Wonka bar this time?" (The first bar Charlie bought was a Scrumdiddlyumptious.) Therefore, Bill could have been in cahoots with Wonka and Wilkinson to make sure Charlie bought the bar--onebar—one of them might have even planted the money for him to find in front of the store.
** Presumably he would have extended the tour until one of them did something wrong. Or he could have had them both/all be his apprentices and heirs (after all, a company can be run by more than one person), or just chosen one.
** Also, what would have happened if an adult had gotten one of the tickets?
*** He'd find a child to take with him. The tickets were transferable--thattransferable—that's why Veruca Salt had one.
**** What if a childless adult found one?
***** Oh come on. Adults are worse than children when it comes to things like magic. Children accept that magic explains all the strange things going on. Most adults go out of their way to find out how card tricks work, never mind apparent "real" magic. They'd have gotten themselves into trouble long before they came close to the end of the tour.
Line 109:
== Book ==
* When reading the book I got a nasty "don't have independent thought, or question things" especially when Willy Wonka says outright he chose a child for an heir over an adult because a child wouldn't change things. None of Dahl's other books have advocated this (hell ''Matilda'' celebrates the opposite). So I'm left confused, and I'm also bothered by how I've never seen this picked up on.
** I got the same sort of vibe, but later figured it's not so much independent thought as it is a life philosophy. When you become an adult, you have your own idea of how the world should work and that's very difficult to change. Many adults are actually incapable of considering doing something different -- suredifferent—sure they have their reasons based on life experiences, but they will poo-poo questions. Wonka wants to prevent two things: One is to have to live forever to see his candy continue to be produced, and the other is to make sure his philosophy for candy making is carried on, but allowed to mutate in another child's imagination. Thus it won't be destroyed by being contaminated by an adult's "That won't work" but gain new life by a child's "Why not?".
** Maybe R. Dahl thought this was different because Wonka himself was very much nonconventional--younonconventional—you know, in the way some nonconformists feel they can look exactly like ''each other'' and still not conform. And ''Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'' was one of R. Dahl's early children's books; ''Matilda'' was the last one he completed, about twenty-five years later. Much room for authorial change in that time.
** Might not so much be an Aesop as that Wonka saw himself as identifying more with children than with adults, and a child would be more likely to continue doing things the way he did.
** Personally, this troper believes that Wonka meant a child wouldn't change the "atmosphere" of the factory. Think about it: Wonka is mainly [[Doing It for the Art]], something that no sane adult businessman would do. Considering how Dahl normally portrays adults in his stories, an adult would probably have turned the factory into a soulless corporation that makes sweets in the cheapest, most generic way possible.
Line 154:
* What would have happened if Charlie and Grandpa Joe hadn't burped in time? Presumably, they would have been killed by the fan, which of course would have eliminated Charlie from the running, leaving Veruca and Mike. Veruca would then do her "I want it now" bit and fall down the chute, leaving just Mike. We see at the end of the film that (unlike in the book) Charlie didn't win the factory by default just by being the last one standing, so presumably Mike wouldn't either. So what would happen then? I can think of two possible scenarios:
** Wonka would continue the tour onto the Television Chocolate Room with just Mike and his mother left. Mike would then pull his television stunt and be eliminated, meaning [[Ten Little Murder Victims|no one would be left]]. Wonka would either have to choose an heir another way, or [[Here We Go Again|hold the Golden Ticket contest all over again]].
** Wonka would end the tour when there was just one child left, just like in the version we're shown. Being one of the "bad kids," Mike in all likelihood wouldn't get his lifetime supply of chocolate. (Wonka would probably use his theft of the Exploding Candy in the inventing room as the justification for denying him the prize.) Mike doesn't seem to have a conscience like Charlie, so he probably wouldn't return the Everlasting Gobstopper. He would probably go and give to to "Slugworth." But since "Slugworth" actually worked for Wonka, he wouldn't give Mike money for it--maybeit—maybe he'd just pretend he didn't want it anymore, I don't know. Just like in the above scenario, Wonka would have to find an heir another way, or repeat the contest.
{{quote|So it seems that Wonka would have been doomed to repeat history if it hadn't been for those fortunate belches. Unless there's a scenario I missed...}}
** The belching was an homage to the book. An old Oompa Loompa refuses to belch, drinks it outside, and never comes back.
Line 257:
*** Neither was the dentist subplot, so that argument is invalid.
*** Actually, if anyone paid attention to Burton's repeated explanations that his movie is NOT a remake of the 1971 movie, but "redo" of the book, you would realize that the argument is valid. Why take a scene out of a movie you've already stated is not what you are trying to make? No, the dentist subplot wasn't in the book, but some sort of padding needed to be added. Let's be honest, Dahl's book doesn't have much of a plot after Charlie gets his chocolate. They needed to a conflict and made one. Burton is generally capable of making his own "freaky shit". He doesn't need to copy a non-sequitor like that (damn you [[TV Tropes]], you've made me defend a director I don't even enjoy).
** I haven't seen the film in a while, but I thought he did (and it was in the book). Not to the deranged lengths the of 1971 film (just... [[BigNon LippedSequitur Alligator MomentScene|WHY]]), but the scary tunnel ''was'' in the movie.
*** I think Wonka's deranged poetry was in the book too, though.
** While there is no hell tunnel sequence, Burton's chocolate river boat shoots itself ''straight the hell down'' to get to the lower levels of the factory. Still pretty scary, if you ask me...
Gethbot
Bots
10,856

edits

Retrieved from "https://allthetropes.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1541443"