Talk:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film)/Archive 2

message: Is it just me or is the logo worn by the Oompa Loompas in the 2005 movie the same as the 1971 Wonka logo? (Different to the curly logo seen on the 2005 chocolates.) - Kwill 07:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Both logos on the candy bars feature a curly part of a "W". However, the 1971 logo features a top hat over the "W" in Wonka.- JustPhil 12:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wonka logo 

message: Added a brief note on the criticisms of overtones of slavery, colonialism and racism in the film, similar to those made about the book when it came out in 64.--Fluxaviator 06:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some editing.  We were editing at the same time, so sorry if anything is lost, I don't think it was.  I tried keeping your points, but added the fact the book was changed to respond to criticism.  Also, the fact the characters in the current film are white, unlike the first version of the book.  If you choose to reword my rewording, I hope the same facts are kept in.  It seems pretty obvious the 2005 film characters were "white pygmies", but I didn't use the term, since it's a little POV.  --rob 07:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: They were not at all "white pygmies" in the 2005 film..they looked pacific islander. Please explain what you mean? have you seen the film? They are very very brown!--Fluxaviator 07:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I beg to differ.  The actor is white.  Not the "color white".  Nobody is the color white.  He is what most would call white.  He is far from what one would imagine of a pygmie from the "darkest part of Africa", imagined in the book.  There is no group called "brown" people.  A tanned white person, is still white, not brown.  There were no brown people in the 2005 film.  There is no non-white ethnic group you can match the Oompa to.  The closest real ethnic group, you can match, is to whites.  The word "brown" is misleading, as it's often been used to describe people of mixed European and African ethnicity.  The Oompa have no visible African ancestory whatsoever.  --rob 07:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Whatever.  I was stupid to get into some conversion about race.  Somebody is going to put all his beefs of racism, slavery, and colonism into this article.  Go ahead.  I was talking about what I saw in film, and don't care where the actual actor came from.  It means nothing to me.  But, for those obsessed with race, it's meaningful.  One more wiki article has been wrecked by a poltical agenda.  I'll being clicking "Save" and "Unwatch" now.  Bye.  --rob 08:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, we're both entitled "unreasonable" opinions, but I'm keeping my opinions on the talk page, not the main article.  The entire "Criticism" section is the personal opinion, not fact, of you, and maybe a few other people.  You cite no sources.  For instances, you could cite some prominent movie critics, or perhaps some well-known civil rights organizations, and then be clear that these are *opinions* of said people.  You give no source for quote from Wilder.  Rather, you put your own personal opinions as fact, within a couple days of the movies release.  You've shown no evidence of any *established* controversy over this film.  Rather, you are trying to start one, and using wiki as your free web space, and soap box.  At an absolute minimum, I expect every contested point to be backed up with some sort of footnote.  Otherwise, some further editing will be needed.  --rob 22:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have re-added the criticism section more or less as it appeared on July 31, since I do not see any discussion of removing it from the page entirely. Many wiki pages have criticism pages. As to the sources rob asks for I have added a few of them. I also agree with the clarification that these type of criticism (of racism) have only appeared in blogs and message boards so far and think it is good to say so, which the page now does.--Fluxaviator 05:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I happen to be friends with Wally Wingert personally. He is friends with the man who originally played Violet Beauregarde's father, Leonard Stone, and he is greatly in defense of his friend, and he dislikes other facets of the film, like the Nut Room. --User:Angie Y.
:That's a stupid criticism. The Nut Room appeared in the book, didn't it? -- A Link to the Past 21:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
::Yes, it did, it was changed to geese or something in the first film because they didn't have the money/technology to do squirrels, it was squirrels recognising a 'bad nut' in the book. What a completely idiotic critisism (I don't think they're in any position to argue over how bad the deatil of the new film is if they haven't even bothered to read the book) I hope they never voice it, they'll never be taken seriously then. --195.92.168.167 20:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much, yeah... The Nut room was in the book, the egg room was not... It was changed, I think, because "Bad egg" made for a better pun than "Bad nut" though that may be an American-Brittish discrepency... I'm not sure... WhateverTS 21:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other criticisms

message: Okay it says here that Deep Roy was born in Nairobi which is the capital of Kenya (unless there's a Nairobi in India?) yet in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005 movie) it claims he is of Indian descent. Here, too, it says he was born in Nairobi but claims he is Indian. What am I missing here, anyone care to enlighten me?  Ø 23:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The part of the article you refer to is about ancestory, not geography of birth, nor citizenship.  I beleive his family originated in India, then moved to Africa, then he was born, and then he moved with his dad to Britain.  For whatever reason, non-blacks are almost never called Africans (maybe Africaners but not Africans), even if they live their whole lives in Africa, even after multiple generations.  --rob 00:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian or African? 

message: Did you think my thing about the opening credits difference wasn't needed?- B-101 17:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening credits

message: I've just seen this. The section where Charlie and Grandpa Joe sneak off and nearly get sucked into the fan was missing, wasn't it? --161.73.58.135 23:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fizzy lifting room? 

message: That scene wasn't in the book, the only reason they added it to the old film was because Wonka uses it as an excuse to explain why Charlie does not gain his free chocolate. for example:
Grandpa Joe: Mister Wonka?
Willy Wonka: I am extraordinarily busy, sir.
Grandpa Joe: I was just wondering about the chocolate. The lifetime supply of chocolate? For Charlie? When does he get it?
Willy Wonka: He doesn't.
Grandpa Joe: Why not?
Willy Wonka: Because he broke the rules.
Grandpa Joe: What rules? We didn't see any rules, did we, Charlie?
Willy Wonka: Wrong, sir. Wrong. Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become
null and void if - and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy - "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera..."Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera..."Memo bis punitor delicatum". It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. You stole fizzy lifting drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing. You lose. Good day sir.
Grandpa Joe: You're a crook. You're a cheat and a swindler. How could you do a thing like this, raise up a little boy's hopes and then dash all his dreams to pieces? You're an inhuman monster.
Willy Wonka: I said good day.
:I'd like to add that this scene was more in keeping with the 1971 musical's message of moderation, which was not the message of the book. In the book, the message was "Kids who chew gum, are fat, are spoiled, and watch TV are Evil little children." WhateverTS 21:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fizzy lifting room Answer 

message: You lose. Good day sir!!! --Fito 19:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Nono, it's "The Taffy stretching room", "The Taffy stretching room!?", "Hey, that was my idea."
On the matter of quotes, is it entirely necessary to have a section in the article dedicated to quotations, when there's a WikiQuote entry for that? --Boxclocke 06:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Best quote ever:

message: Is it standard practice to have a Trivia section on a wikipedia page? I seems odd to me for an encyclopedia.--Fluxaviator 05:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like those points should perhaps be in a "production notes" or "special effects" section. --Fluxaviator 07:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with moving it to a more appropriate section or sub-section (existing or new).  The word "Trivia" just tells the reader the information is unimportant, which, as suggested, doesn't sound very "encyclopedic".  --rob 08:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur.—Theo  (Talk) 08:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, you can make a strong argument for deleting trivia sections in their entirety ;-) Probably the best thing to do is to look carefully at the information there, decide what's genuinely relevant (relative to the topic) and what's just cruft, and move the useful stuff elsewhere as suggested above. — Matt Crypto 11:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: While it is perhaps not "standard practice" to have a trivia section, many (if not most) large film/pop-culture-related articles have one. While I do think it could use some paring down, I'd vote against removing it altogether. Boxclocke 00:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: True—just as many if not most articles do not cite sources; the prevailing state is not necessarily optimal, which is why less than 10% of articles are featured.  In my opinion, trivia sections encourage editors and readers less engaged with pop culture to dismiss the article as trivial. They also encourage the use of bulleted lists rather than the writing of encyclopedic linked paragraphs of prose. —Theo  (Talk) 10:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the bit of information after the Invader Zim reference. I didn't see why it needed to list the people who star in that particular show if this article is about the movie. RasstheLenek 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section? 

message: Is it just me, or were there many pop culture, particularly movie, references in this film? The most obvious one is to the musical "Hair" when Willy says to the children, "Good morning starshine, the earth says hello." Other, more tongue-in-cheek references include Edward Scissorhands (another Burton and Depp film) when Willy cuts the ribbon at the grand opening of his factory and the camera focuses on the scissors held by Willy for this task, Pirates of the Carribbean in the way that Willy swings his machete in the jungles of Loompaland, and Star Wars when they show the construction of the chocolate palace, with the half-completed dome on top of the castle looking suspiciously like the half-built Death Star in Return of the Jedi. I couldn't find any more information on this and was wondering if I was just making all this up, or if other people had noticed these things as well.
----
Yes I noticed the 2001: A Space Odyssey reference as well as the Edward Scissorhands reference- others claim that it is just a coincidence, but i mean, it can't be. it is a little bit tongue in cheek- i think i was the only one in the cinema that got it :) Plus, in the scene where 
there are chocolates in the fire (sorry i cant be more specific) there is a Nightmare Before Christmas chocolate, apparently. we will have to wait until it comes out on dvd before we can be sure of all the references, though... --Rachel Cakes 04:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture References 

message: User:Matt Crypto removed the following unverified buttons from the article (correctly, in my opinion).  If anyone can verify them, then they can be restored individually. The list is: "Mighty Jam Monitor, Creative Dog Flip, Weird Lollipops, Elastic Forest, Leaky Canes, Dessert Island, People Poo, and Pie Cream have been spotted, though these buttons are unverified." —Theo  (Talk) 10:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Elevator buttons

message: Please note, the article Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is being considered for deletion.  You may wish to visit the AFD page to have input.  Some (not me) have suggested a merge back into here, so this vote would obviously effect this article signficantly.  --rob 18:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for Deletion vote on table of differences 

message: There is a CATCF fansite down the bottom of the page but it doesn't seem to work for me. CATCF Online I have tried going to it during different times of the day but it seems to be down permanantly. Can anyone else access it?
I am using Mozilla Firefox (if that makes a difference). If it still isn't working in 1 week then I will remove the link.
--Rachel Cakes 09:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't work for me either, and I removed it.  If it works again in the future, somebody can add it back.  It's so easy to find fan sites on this topic, I'm sure it's not a loss for anybody.  If it had been used as a "Reference" or was an official site, then I would have wanted to keep it for a longer period.  --rob 09:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CATCF fansite 

message: Since it's out on DVD now, I think we should get some more plot images (preferably ones of the children's demise). Also (in response to an earlier comment on this page), I do think that the half-finished chocolate palace dome looks like the Death Star and additionally, the way Mike flies into the air as the Oompa Loompa song goes from KISS to The Beatles looks like a reference to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.- JustPhil 19:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More pictures and trivia

message: "The happiness of characters involved in chocolate in the film “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” contrasts with the misery of children, some only 9 years old, forced to work in horrific conditions producing cocoa beans. See Chocolate and slavery. A campaign is under way to give out leaflets explaining the problem when, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” is screened."
Is this suppose to be in this article?- JustPhil 15:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia dispute 

message: Are there any plans to make a film based on Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator? Scorpionman 03:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's your opinion. Personally, i really enjoyed the second book and am disappointed that the third book was never done. The ending to this film was poor; they should've done it the way the book did. Of course, I've already thought of ways that they could fit in a sequel. Mr. Wonka could be giving the rest of the family a tour of the factory, and then one of them accidentally pushes the "Up and Out" button and they go crashing through the roof again and end up having to do what they did in Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. But they shouldn't have had Mr. Wonka refusing Charlie's family in the first place. Scorpionman 00:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequel 

message: "40 squirrels were actually trained from birth for six months to crack nuts for Veruca Salt's Nut Room scene (making it one of the most believable scenes in the whole film)."
This sounds like someone involved in the production having a little fun with the audience. What's described would be very expensive and harmful to the animals. Animated squirrels are well within the capability of current CGI technology. Gazpacho 10:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia