Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / CharlieAndTheChocolateFactory

Go To



*** The factory layoffs ''and'' the reopening both occurred well before the Golden Ticket craze; Grandpa Joe reveals it in his story to Charlie about the factory. In any case, while you might have some adults grumbling about Wonka, remember that this story is still told from the point of view of children; all but the most precocious and socially active children are going to focus on the "chocolate" aspect of the situation before the "social and economic impacts" aspect.

to:

*** The factory layoffs ''and'' the reopening both occurred well before the Golden Ticket craze; Grandpa Joe reveals it in his story to Charlie about the factory. In any case, while you might have some adults grumbling about Wonka, remember that this story is still told from the point of view of children; all but the most precocious and socially politically active children are going to focus on the "chocolate" aspect of the situation before the "social and economic impacts" aspect.


* The logic behind the kids' "punishments" was always kind of interesting to me. While all four are spoiled, it's only Veruca's parents who are punished alongside her. This is apparently because, as the song says, they share the blame for her character flaw. With the others, however, this is apparently not so. While the text does make it clear that the Gloops, Beauregardes, and Teavees either encourage or turn a blind eye to their childrens' flaws, the punishment eventually falls on the kids alone - it is Augustus who is sucked painfully up the pipe, it is Violet who is permanently blue, and it is Mike who is now a Slender-Man-esque freak of nature, while the parents only look on with dismay. Augustus's song especially makes it clear that he's just a loathsome human being (though we don't get too much evidence of that in his behavior besides, you know, his gluttony). But why do their parents, unlike Veruca's, get off scot-free?
** Possibly because Mr. Salt has the distinction of having a ''direct'' role in Veruca's brattiness, while the Gloops, Mrs. Beauregarde, and the Teevees are only responsible ''indirectly'', by not stopping the bad habits.

Added DiffLines:

** It could also be argued that that's the entire flaw of Charlie's character in this version: he's too precocious and dedicated to doing right by his family to think of pursuing another option, like retaining something that's truly one of a kind and will grant him an enriching experience with or without the chance to make more money through it. It's like when he turns down Wonka's offer to inherit the factory. Rather than try and negotiate something or work out precisely why Wonka feels this way, he declines on the spot, ignoring the notoriety that would probably come to his family once news of Charlie's prize became public or the fact that he could probably welcome them all into the factory once Wonka officially retires.


** Though this does create something of a plot hole in the 2005 film, where Wonka makes known from the start that he has a special prize for one of the five children who find the tickets.



** We also don't know that he doesn't allow safety inspectors. When they say "No one goes in", what they probably mean is "no one who's in a position to tell us what it's like has gone in."



* Mike's fate in general. It's hard to explain my problem, but I'll try. All the other kids brought their fates upon themselves, and Wonka cured them as best he could; Violet, for instance, was purple as an aftereffect of being a blueberry, and there was nothing they could do to get her regular colouring back. But Mike... how can you overstretch someone by like six feet? Why couldn't Dahl just have had him walking out looking ridiculously thin? Seriously, I can't believe the oompa loompas overstretched him by accident.

to:

* Mike's fate in general. It's hard to explain my problem, but I'll try. All Most the other kids brought their fates upon themselves, and Wonka cured them as best he could; Violet, for instance, was purple as an aftereffect of being a blueberry, and there was nothing they could do to get her regular colouring back. But Mike... how can you overstretch someone by like six feet? Why couldn't Dahl just have had him walking out looking ridiculously thin? Seriously, I can't believe the oompa loompas overstretched him by accident.



* Why wasn't the girl a competitive athlete and chewed bubblegum? Wasn't it as widespread of a concept to have the children of a wannabe-sportler being grown up to train in a specific sport or of a wannabe-musician to teach their kid piano, or did the author just happen to hate bubblegum?
** Huh?
*** I'm pretty sure the OP is asking "Why wasn't Violet a competitive gum-chewer, especially considering her father was such a sport-enthusiast.
** OP, I think there's a very important point you're missing: The children correspond to a [[SevenDeadlySins Deadly Sin]]. Augustus Gloop represents Sloth, Violet Beauregard represents {{Pride}}, Veruca Salt represents {{Greed}}, and Mike Teavee represents Wrath (in the Burton version, at any rate; in the Wilder version he seems to be an even mix of Wrath and Pride). Bubblegum chewing is a character flaw, nothing more.
*** By the way, Violet's fatal flaw in the '71 version was that she lacked manners/etiquette.
*** I'm pretty sure Augustus represented Gluttony. He's not lazy, he's a pig.
*** Yeah, Augustus is definitely Gluttony. I would also submit that Mike could be an example of Sloth, even in the 70's version (hear me out). Sloth doesn't necessarily mean laziness, although that is certainly the most common form, but rather that you are wasting your talents and time on trivial matters. In all the versions, Mike is someone who has devoted his existence to television (and video games in the latest film) which we are certainly meant to see as an unworthy use of his time. In the newest film, the point is driven home much more forcefully by having him be smart enough to crack Wonka's worldwide candy bar placement algorithm and yet all he does all day is play videogames and watch TV.
*** I'm fairly certainly that Veruca could also represent Wrath, given her habit of throwing temper tantrums.
*** Making Willy Wonka the devil, the chocolate factory into hell and Charlie into the antichrist.
*** Actually, the corresponding Deadly Sins would probably be gluttony for Augustus, pride (in her gum-chewing record) for Violet, greed for Veruca, and sloth for Mike (from sitting around watching television all day). Charlie might be envy (in that he's a bit jealous of others in general, his family being somewhat impoverished) and Wonka is probably more along the lines of [[Literature/TheDivineComedy Virgil]]. If you take some planned but unused content from the original book, wrath and lust would probably go to dropped characters Miranda Piker and Marvin Prune to get all seven of the sins.
** Violet ''is'' a competitive gum-chewer, in both versions. Furthermore, the 2005 version shows that Violet has a vast array of trophies from a number of activities; given that her introductory scene shows her practicing karate, this would likely include sports as well. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Violet's parents are a sports-enthusiasts: '71 version portrays Mr. Beauregard as a used car salesman who only cares about business, while Mrs. Beauregard from the 2005 version is a former ''baton-twirler''.
** Dahl sought to emphasize the absurdity of Violet's pride for satirical purposes. If he'd made her exessively proud of being a musical prodigy or a star-athlete, than she'd still have probably been seen as nasty but there would've been a far greater chance of readers potentially emphatizing with her (I mean, those are genuinely impressive achievements - wouldn't you be proud?). By making her take pride in something stupid and mundane, Dahl has ensured that she come off as unsympathetic enough that most readers would cheer at her being punished.



* I can't believe no one's asked this, but: Why in the world is this place called a ''[[NonIndicativeName chocolate]]'' factory? It's clearly a ''candy'' factory. (If the reason was alliteration, Dahl could've named the hero Carl or Christopher or you get the idea.)

to:

* I can't believe no one's asked this, but: Why in the world is this place it called a ''[[NonIndicativeName chocolate]]'' factory? It's clearly a ''candy'' factory. (If the reason was alliteration, Dahl could've named the hero Carl or Christopher or you get the idea.)



** Going off the above question of "What would happen if all the children on the tour were rotten?", I'd assume that if the fifth ticket hadn't been found, Wonka would just hold the tour with the four children who'd already found their tickets, the fifth one would effectively be recalled, and then he would send out five more tickets the next year to continue his secret search for an heir.



* When reading the book I got a nasty "don't have independent thoughts, 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 (''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 -- 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--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 DoingItForTheArt, 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.
** If things were changed, the candy would be different, and probably not as high in quality, which would presumably affect sales, so the heir would owe it to their own success to do things Wonka's way. After all, mixing chocolate by waterfall is the only way to get it just right.
*** Interestingly, the [[Theatre/CharlieAndTheChocolateFactory 2013 stage musical]] actually confirms some of the above theories (life philosophy, identifying more with children than adults, DoingItForTheArt) via AdaptationExpansion. Mr. Wonka is, indeed, specifically seeking a child who is not just good and honest, but has the imagination to create new things (the late-in-the-game song "A Little Me" is devoted to explaining why). And with regards to the "obedience" issue, [[spoiler: he tests Charlie by leaving him alone in a room with a precious idea notebook which he has forbidden the boy to touch, reminding him what happened to the other kids who disobeyed...but Charlie can't resist, and even adds his own ideas to blank pages in the back. Mr. Wonka initially feigns fury when he comes back...but this was what he ''wanted'' the boy to do, as it proves he's a kindred spirit, a true artist]]. As a bonus, [[spoiler: Mr. Wonka immediately makes Charlie the new owner and leaves (to follow his own muse elsewhere) -- the boy, with the help of his family and the Oompa-Loompas, will get to make his own destiny]].



* In the book as originally written--the version I owned as a child--the Oompa-Loompas are dark. In fact Charlie asks “Did you really make them out of chocolate?” In the revised book--the version my son read--they are described as vanilla-colored. Unanswerable question: Since they come from a part of the world where cacao grows wild, meaning either Africa or South America (I don't remember if the book specifies), how in God’s name can this be considered ''less'' racist?
** Dahl's original draft said the Oompa-Loompas came from DarkestAfrica, but the revised version makes up a new place called Loompaland which, knowing Dahl, may well be on its own continent.
* When Wonka reopens his factory and won't let anyone in, how does he market his wares without having to deal with workplace safety and food health regulations?
** Money.
** Can't say anything about the second film, but keep in mind that the original book was written seven years before OSHA existed, and the first film was released the same year OSHA was officially established.[[note]]And the latter actually included a number of on-set incidents that would likely get the studio in legal trouble today, like Veruca's actress cutting herself on a rock in the chocolate room and everyone having a bad reaction to the "soap"(actually fire extinguisher foam) in the Wonka-Wash scene.[[/note]] Presumably, as long as there wasn't a rash of people getting ill from his products, no-one saw a reason to investigate.



** Plus, in the book and the 2005 film, Augustus is only shown leaving the factory after the tour is already over. (And he's still covered in chocolate, too.) It's possible it really did take that long to fish him out of the mixing barrel.



* This is more to the Tim Burton version, but was the kid who played Mike Teevee chosen simply because he was repulsive-looking and it added to his character? Plus he's a know-it-all dipshit who Jack Thompson would use as his Exhibit #1 if he could still be a lawyer.
** In the books, Dahl made the other children have flaws that he considered not good for children. Some of them were good (Veruca being spoiled, Augustus being so greedy, etc), but then some of them were flaws that were annoying at the most (Violet's gum chewing, Mike's tv obsession, etc). If they tried to have a child punished for chewing gum or watching tv today, audiences would probably think it was unfair or unbelieveable, so they made those children more intolerable than their book counterparts. In Violet's case, she was ruthlessly competetitive to the point of being outright nasty. In Mike's case, his obsessive tv watching made him violent, edgy, and out-of-touch with his father.
** If you look at the red carpet pictures, the kid was actually pretty cute when he wasn't making the Mr. Grumpypants face.
* This is sort of specific to the Tim Burton version, but... Mike Teevee's "exit song" chides him for becoming mindless due to watching television, with lyrics such as "He does not think, he only sees!" However, Teevee's flaw in the Burton film is that he seems a bit too smart for his own good. What gives?
** The exit song was transferred word-for-word from the original book. Mike Teavee's character was not.
*** So it can be blamed on Danny Elfman for not writing modified lyrics to go with the character change.

to:

* This is more to the Tim Burton version, but was the kid who played Mike Teevee chosen simply because he was repulsive-looking and it added to his character? Plus he's a know-it-all dipshit who Jack Thompson would use as his Exhibit #1 if he could still be a lawyer.
** In the books, Dahl made the other children have flaws that he considered not good for children. Some of them were good (Veruca being spoiled, Augustus being so greedy, etc), but then some of them were flaws that were annoying at the most (Violet's gum chewing, Mike's tv obsession, etc). If they tried to have a child punished for chewing gum or watching tv today, audiences would probably think it was unfair or unbelieveable, so they made those children more intolerable than their book counterparts. In Violet's case, she was ruthlessly competetitive to the point of being outright nasty. In Mike's case, his obsessive tv watching made him violent, edgy, and out-of-touch with his father.
** If you look at the red carpet pictures, the kid was actually pretty cute when he wasn't making the Mr. Grumpypants face.
* This is sort of specific to the Tim Burton version, but...
Mike Teevee's "exit song" chides him for becoming mindless due to watching television, with lyrics such as "He does not think, he only sees!" However, Teevee's flaw in the Burton film is that he seems a bit too smart for his own good. What gives?
** The exit song was transferred word-for-word from the original book. Mike Teavee's character was not.
***
not. So it can could be blamed on Danny Elfman for not writing modified lyrics to go with the character change.



* Is the Tim Burton version set in Britain or America? Charlie's family is British, but they all use American grammar and slang. Willy Wonka is American, but his origin story is British, and everyone eats ''candy''... I can't remember what currency they use.

to:

* Is the Tim Burton this version set in Britain or America? Charlie's family is British, but they all use American grammar and slang. Willy Wonka is American, but his origin story is British, and everyone eats ''candy''... I can't remember what currency they use.



*** Carried over from the book, which used British idioms and yet Charlie found a dollar...

to:

*** ** Carried over from the book, which used British idioms and yet Charlie found a dollar...



* A lot of people complain that Depp's interpretation of Willy Wonka seemed to just be a Michael Jackson charicature, which really bugs me because Michael Jackson loved children and Willy Wonka, in every incarnation of the story, very obviously hates children.
** He doesn't hate them in every incarnation, just the 2005 one.
** I think one reason for that was the general appearance of Depp's Wonka (IIRC he had quite pale skin, like Jackson's) and the idea that that man is interacting with children. And people will never let facts get in the way of making fun of something.
** Depp's Wonka also has a completely different hair color/haircut.
** Since when did Wonka hate children? He specificly wants a child to take over the factory because of their enthusiasm and innocence. He loves children, but I love cake and will still throw out a stale, fungus covered cake. I will hate it all the more because I know what a wonderful cake it might have been. Wonka is the same with kids, spoiled, greedy, idiotic kids are all the worse because he knows what well raised and well cared for children can be so good.
*** Err, no. He's cold toward all five children (apart from Charlie later on). Remember his line describing what a veruca was in the book and the 2005 movie? Or his sarcastic deadpan plea for the police in the 1971 movie? He wanted an heir to carry on his legacy, and he decided on a child who still has innocence. Nothing implied, at least in the 2005 movie, that he adored children.
*** I don't think he ''hated'' children in all versions---[[AdaptationalVillainy the 2005 one aside.]]
*** The reason he's cold to the other four from the start is because he's most likely already seen their worst sides in their TV interviews. The closest he gets with Charlie, in the Depp version, is his first line to Grandpa Joe when he briefly suspects him of being one a former spy.
*** I think the term is off here. Wonka enjoys a child's imagination but he in what some would call a sociopathic level has zero problems seeing people he doesn't like get karmic torture inflicted on them. He's also testing these specific kids to essentially find his diamond in the rough, so he's hoping to be surprised. And the lot of them right off the bat aren't exactly looking encouraging based on what Wonka considers a good lifestyle and imagination.
*** I think we're missing something very important here. Wonka is cold to four children who are very screamingly obviously ''giant brats''. Notice how he is ''not'' cold to Charlie, who is also ''not'' a giant brat. Wonka doesn't necessarily hate kids in general, but he hates ''these'' kids because ''these'' kids are massively irritating and obnoxious.
** Depp based his performance on Michael Jackson, but that doesn't mean he is like Michael Jackson to the nth degree (which, given some of the more unsavoury accusations about Jackson's interactions with kids, is probably a good thing). He shares Jackson's mannerisms, but not his affection for kids. Simple.
* So, uh, why didn't either Charlie or Mike, who both were small enough to fit though the gate as Veruca did, do a damn thing to save her? Sure, she was a huge ass, but still.

to:

* A lot of people complain that Depp's interpretation of Willy Wonka seemed to just be a Michael Jackson charicature, which really bugs me because Michael Jackson loved children and Willy Wonka, in every incarnation of the story, very obviously hates children.
** He doesn't hate them in every incarnation, just the 2005 one.
** I think one reason for that was the general appearance of Depp's Wonka (IIRC he had quite pale skin, like Jackson's) and the idea that that man is interacting with children. And people will never let facts get in the way of making fun of something.
** Depp's Wonka also has a completely different hair color/haircut.
** Since when did Wonka hate children? He specificly wants a child to take over the factory because of their enthusiasm and innocence. He loves children, but I love cake and will still throw out a stale, fungus covered cake. I will hate it all the more because I know what a wonderful cake it might have been. Wonka is the same with kids, spoiled, greedy, idiotic kids are all the worse because he knows what well raised and well cared for children can be so good.
*** Err, no. He's cold toward all five children (apart from Charlie later on). Remember his line describing what a veruca was in the book and the 2005 movie? Or his sarcastic deadpan plea for the police in the 1971 movie? He wanted an heir to carry on his legacy, and he decided on a child who still has innocence. Nothing implied, at least in the 2005 movie, that he adored children.
*** I don't think he ''hated'' children in all versions---[[AdaptationalVillainy the 2005 one aside.]]
*** The reason he's cold to the other four from the start is because he's most likely already seen their worst sides in their TV interviews. The closest he gets with Charlie, in the Depp version, is his first line to Grandpa Joe when he briefly suspects him of being one a former spy.
*** I think the term is off here. Wonka enjoys a child's imagination but he in what some would call a sociopathic level has zero problems seeing people he doesn't like get karmic torture inflicted on them. He's also testing these specific kids to essentially find his diamond in the rough, so he's hoping to be surprised. And the lot of them right off the bat aren't exactly looking encouraging based on what Wonka considers a good lifestyle and imagination.
*** I think we're missing something very important here. Wonka is cold to four children who are very screamingly obviously ''giant brats''. Notice how he is ''not'' cold to Charlie, who is also ''not'' a giant brat. Wonka doesn't necessarily hate kids in general, but he hates ''these'' kids because ''these'' kids are massively irritating and obnoxious.
** Depp based his performance on Michael Jackson, but that doesn't mean he is like Michael Jackson to the nth degree (which, given some of the more unsavoury accusations about Jackson's interactions with kids, is probably a good thing). He shares Jackson's mannerisms, but not his affection for kids. Simple.
* So, uh, why didn't either Charlie or Mike, who both were small enough to fit though the gate as Veruca did, do a damn thing anything to save her? Sure, she was a huge ass, but still.her?



** This is because both Mike and Charlie as psychologically ready for a zombie apocalypse. Think about it.



*** Maybe they were to initially shocked by the sheer what the fuckery of what was going on before their eyes; because hey wouldn't you be.

to:

*** Maybe they were to too initially shocked by the sheer what the fuckery of what was going on before their eyes; because hey wouldn't you be.to react in time.



** Also, while Charlie is a good kid and might've tried it if it wasn't so dangerous, Mike was never gonna risk his neck for her.
* Marilyn Manson reportedly said, "If anyone were ever to remake Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, I would audition for Willy in a heartbeat", which makes me think he thinks Willy Wonka's meant to be evil... demonic even, in reference to the boat ride in the Gene Wilder version, but, if you dig just a tiny bit, you might realize that the whole factory is a metaphor for heaven (particularly for children). So, Marilyn would've been woefully miscast...
** So Willy Wonka is God... you know that could explain so much about both the story and reality.
** Marilyn Manson said in an interview, "I see Willy Wonka as Satan because he presents people with the temptation of picking good and evil, and they all pick evil."
*** In the Gene Wilder version, sure, they all let temptation take them. However, Mister Dahl reputedly hated the Gene Wilder version, thus why it's called "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" instead of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". In part, I presume this is because, in the book, Charlie never gave in to temptation. He was a pure soul, and thus, allowed to enter 'heaven', ruling alongside 'God'... so, mister Manson there got it wrong anyway.
*** Not true. Dahl did hate the movie (reportedly he refused to ever see it in it's entirety, and would immediately change the channel if he ever caught sight of it on tv) because the initial screenplay he wrote was massively re-written by David Seltzer. But that isn't the reason for the name change. The movie was renamed "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" because the Vietnam War was still in full swing at the time, so the name "Charlie" would have had...UnfortunateImplications.
*** Actually, the interview in the "Willy Wonka" special features said that they changed the name because they wanted the movie to better promote the Wonka Bars that were being produced at the time. The candy had a flawed recipe and had to be pulled pretty quick, though...
** I don't know why people automatically assume Manson (or Satan, for that matter) is "evil". Has he ever actually '''done''' anything wrong? I think he wanted to play Wonka, because he wanted to have fun.
*** Very true; despite appearances, he is a very well spoken, very intelligent, very kind and empathetic individual. This is a guy who managed to get Bill Maher to shut up with his eloquence and in the wake of the Columbine shootings where people blamed his music, stated to someone who tried to ask him about it that he did not want to talk about it because he did not want to make the shooters any more famous than they already were and that people should be focusing on the tragedy of the victims not the glamorization of the shooters. He likely would have been a different but appropriate sort of Wonka.
*** I think being a High Priest in the Orthodoxy of Satan would kinda get some raised eyebrows. As well as the burning and shredding of Bibles onstage...and allowing your drummer to stick a puppy in his bass drum, pull it out halfway through dead from the concussions, and then throw it into the crowd... Sure, Manson's articulate and charismatic, but then so was Ted Bundy...
*** Check your facts, dude: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/marilyn2.asp.
*** Yes, Marilyn Manson is a really awful person. He's cheated pretty much everyone he's ever had a business relationship with, abruptly dumped his wife for a barely legal teenager and then waged a campaign of petty slights against his ex for no reason other than to be vindictive, and in general promotes himself as a philosopher when he's nothing but a clown.
** You have to admit, Wonka does have a very mysterious tone to his personality, which is a quality usually reserved for villains. So even if you're correct in assuming Manson thinks Wonka is evil, why would that be a miscast? It's not like, in the end, the story would be any different.
*** Satanists such as Manson do not see Satan as evil, quite the contrary, they see him as a representation of the rebellious, knowledge-seeking human nature. Obviously, by making the comparision he is not saying Wonka is evil.

* Wonka's line in the TV Room:
--> Well why would I want to teleport a person? They don't taste very good at all!
Am I ''honestly'' the only one who is ''deeply'' disturbed by the implication of actual cannibalism in that line?
** Because Wonka admits earlier that everything in the room (including the buttons, though they are not ''digestible'') was "eatable", including himself. However, as he says it is frowned upon in most societies; that likely suggests to viewers that Wonka himself does not promote cannibalism, and they interpret the later comment as a joke rather than yet another clue towards the outright ''stated'' fact that Wonka is a horribly deranged man.
*** [[LateToThePunchLine Oh]]. Why would he ''know'' people don't taste very good at all. [[FridgeHorror Eek]]. An Oompa-Loompa funereal ritual, maybe? They're pygmy humans in the book and Burton film, and thus would taste like "normal" people. [[BlackComedy Except when they taste like blueberry]].
*** You can taste something without ''eating'' it, you know.
** He ate Mrs. Lovitt's pies in a alternate universe?
** For the line you're referring to, Wonka was only thinking about chocolate and couldn't see any non-candy-related applications for the Wonkavision (or probably anything he makes, really). When Mike suggested using it on people, his line of thought was more like, "Why do to people what I do to chocolate?" As for the line in the chocolate room.... I think might've been more bemoaning how you couldn't eat people in most societies, not informing the children of it. That's what it sounded like to me.



** Because they're not going to show a small child ''covered in second-degree burns'' in a family-friendly movie. Had they shown Augustus looking like a [[BodyHorror burnt chocolate hominoid monstrosity]], the movie would've been thrown in the scrap heap. Burton's into creepy stuff, not horror/gore stuff.

to:

** Because they're not going to show a small child ''covered in second-degree burns'' in a family-friendly movie. Had they shown Augustus looking like a [[BodyHorror burnt chocolate hominoid monstrosity]], the movie would've been thrown in the scrap heap. Burton's into creepy stuff, not horror/gore stuff.



* Why didn't Tim Burton do the 'Tunnel of Hell' scene? He's well known for the freaky shit he puts in his films, and that would've been a perfect time to do it.
** Because it wasn't in the book.
*** 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 Wiki/TVTropes, you've made me defend a director I don't even enjoy).
*** Dahl didn't like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and said he didn't want The Great Glass Elevator put to film. They needed some way to wrap up the plot, and the dentist subplot fit nicely.
** 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... [[BigLippedAlligatorMoment 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...
*** But not what people remember from the original, and likely for the reason that it would be too dark in a children's film today.
** If there is one thing people remember about the Gene Wilder film, it's the "Tunnel of Hell". Nostalgia Critic included it in his "Nostalgic Mindfucks" segment, lists of 'movies too dark for children' consistently cite that scene, Cracked mentions it quite a bit, et cetera. Taking that iconic scene and re-doing it, especially because it's Tim Burton, likely wouldn't be received favorably.
* If Tim Burton wanted to do a film adaption that was more like the book, then why did he make Willy Wonka so different? Neither film adaption has Wonka like he is in the book, but at least the 1971 film has Wonka ''vaguely'' like the book (he is rather more serene than the excitable book Wonka). 2005 film Wonka, on the other hand, has almost ''no'' similarities to the book character.
** Except that he has several lines and exchanges copied wholesale from the book (admittedly Wilder may have had as well, but I haven't seen his film for a long time). While I'd probably agree that neither are exact to the book, I think ''Depp'' is the more faithful.
*** Except Depp's version adds the excessive ManChild aspects to the character, plus the unnecessary boatload of DaddyIssues. I think the Nostalgia Critic said it best when he suggested that the 1971 movie is closer to Wonka's characterisation in the book (but the film becomes more about Charlie), whilst the 2005 film had a closer characterisation for Charlie (and yet became more about Willy Wonka as part of the standard Tim Burton/Johnny Depp thing).
* What was Mike playing in the 2005 film? Or at least what was it based on? It looked similar to an ''Atari 7200'' however the graphics was more [=PS2=] or Xbox like.

to:

* Why didn't Tim Burton do the 'Tunnel of Hell' scene? He's well known for the freaky shit he puts in his films, and that would've been a perfect time to do it.
** Because it wasn't in the book.
*** 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 Wiki/TVTropes, you've made me defend a director I don't even enjoy).
*** Dahl didn't like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and said he didn't want The Great Glass Elevator put to film. They needed some way to wrap up the plot, and the dentist subplot fit nicely.
** 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... [[BigLippedAlligatorMoment 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...
*** But not what people remember from the original, and likely for the reason that it would be too dark in a children's film today.
** If there is one thing people remember about the Gene Wilder film, it's the "Tunnel of Hell". Nostalgia Critic included it in his "Nostalgic Mindfucks" segment, lists of 'movies too dark for children' consistently cite that scene, Cracked mentions it quite a bit, et cetera. Taking that iconic scene and re-doing it, especially because it's Tim Burton, likely wouldn't be received favorably.
* If Tim Burton wanted to do a film adaption that was more like the book, then why did he make Willy Wonka so different? Neither film adaption has Wonka like he is in the book, but at least the 1971 film has Wonka ''vaguely'' like the book (he is rather more serene than the excitable book Wonka). 2005 film Wonka, on the other hand, has almost ''no'' similarities to the book character.
** Except that he has several lines and exchanges copied wholesale from the book (admittedly Wilder may have had as well, but I haven't seen his film for a long time). While I'd probably agree that neither are exact to the book, I think ''Depp'' is the more faithful.
*** Except Depp's version adds the excessive ManChild aspects to the character, plus the unnecessary boatload of DaddyIssues. I think the Nostalgia Critic said it best when he suggested that the 1971 movie is closer to Wonka's characterisation in the book (but the film becomes more about Charlie), whilst the 2005 film had a closer characterisation for Charlie (and yet became more about Willy Wonka as part of the standard Tim Burton/Johnny Depp thing).
Probably, yes.
* What kind of game system was Mike playing in the 2005 film? his introduction? Or at least what was it based on? It looked similar to an ''Atari 7200'' however the graphics was more [=PS2=] or Xbox like.



** I never got the sense that they were pretending to be friends or hated each other on first watch, interestingly!



* Just gonna come right out and say it: Mike Teevee is more likeable than Charlie. A modern-day audience (especially children in it) are far more likely to identify with him than they are with the relentlessly perfect, naive, and saintly Charlie who seems to be from another time entirely. And the points Mike makes are perfectly valid (beyond the level of lampshade hanging to things that would make the audience go, 'hey, yeah, I want an explanation for this Fridge Logic!); Wonka just comes off as an ass for brushing them off. Is there... some way to JUSTIFY this? Did Burton just fuck up, or what?
** OK, while I disagree with you, I think I understand the point your making, and you could easily have made the same point using any of the other four bratty children. But "likeable" is the wrong word. There's nothing likeable about the other kids, but they're all far more ''relatable'' than Charlie, who, like you pointed out, is overly perfect. Does that make him unlikeable? No---in the context of the book, which has a lot of [[FlatCharacter]]s, it works well---but it does make him extremely difficult for the average kid to relate too. That's why they changed his personality in the 1970s version---to make him more believable. Sure, in it he gets angry, he gets upset, but in the end he has a good heart and does the right thing, in contrast to how he is in all other versions---very likeable, but hardly believeable. Like I said, though, you could have used any of the other bratty kids to make your point, since although they're completely dispisable assholes, they're all very believable characters, at least one of whom I'm sure almost anyone can relate to.
** He's an unsympathetic asshole with borderline ArbitrarySkepticism. [[ArsonMurderAndJaywalking Who mumbles.]] What ''is'' likable about him?
*** This troper would have to agree. Even if the more contemporary Mike is a little more relatable to audiences, he's still impatient, snotty, and condescending. He's a little smarter than everyone else, but he's still over-reliant on technology to the point of laziness. This is the underlying flaw the character represents, not just simply an obsession with television or video games.
*** Exactly. Since when did "I relate with this character" automatically mean "I like this character"?
*** I'm sure the original poster meant that and just used the wrong word.
*** Since Mike acts like a ''real person''. Sure, he's a snotty, condescending arse, but frankly the same could be said about Willy Wonka. He's just a {{Flanderization}} of an average stereotypical child. He also happens to have several realistic idiosyncrasies , such as his intelligence and and [[DeadpanSnarker deadpan snarkery]]. Charlie, though? Charlie is a MartyStu. Unlike in the Gene Wilder movie, he has no character flaws. He's optimistic, kind, good to his family, unfailingly cheerful, and he never screws up or gets angry. Everyone heralds him as the only decent child in the story, not for doing something brave or clever or heroic, but for doing ''nothing'' the entire movie. He is rewarded for not questioning anything and staying in his proper place. And that is far more obnoxious than some smarmy kid who plays video games a lot.
*** So are you saying that Charlie is the worst out of all the kids then, just for being overly perfect? Which yes, he is, but the fact that he is despite all that's happening to him and his family is what's supposed to make him incredibly admirable. I saw you also compared him to his Gene Wilder film counterpart, who I do admit is better-written for being a more realistic and relatable character. And while I can't agree with anyone who thinks the four bratty kids are more likeable, I can understand why someone might have mixed feelings about TheHero for not being as relatable as them.
*** If you prefer the giant asshat Mike who's arrogant (and not just in the "I'm ridiculously awesome" sort of way, but in the "I am better than you and I am going to rub it in your face til you cry" sort of way), lazy, rude, has no respect for anyone but himself, etc. to Charlie who may be a bit perfect but hardly does nothing, that's your prerogative. But I don't think most other people would agree with you, and you can't honestly complain that Burton made a character who was likeable by most to good guy and a character that was unlikeable to most the bad guy just because you, as a single and more than likely vastly outnumbered person, preferred it the other way around.
*** I think I agree with the original poster on this, but something I'd like to add...I think Mike Teavee's problem isn't so much with Charlie as it is with Wonka. While he is kind of a bland and undeveloped character, Charlie also never directly takes any one person's side in the movie. He isn't a rotten brat like the other kids, but he also doesn't take Wonka up on his offer in the end until Wonka learns to change his ways and reunite with his father. And that's the problem - while he never does anything to Charlie, Mike's problem that nips him in the behind in this film is that "he's so arrogant that he fights Wonka on everything Wonka says or does." This is despite the fact that, [[JerkassHasAPoint not only does he bring up some good points in his arguments]] (If you hate gum so much, why do you make it?), but the entire ending of the film shows the viewers that Wonka's way of doing things ''does'' need to change, that he needs to stop acting like a little child all the time, learn some responsibility, and accept that your superiors are just trying to do what's best for you. In short, that's the problem with Mike's character arc - he's supposed to be looked at as wrong and the bad guy because he questions the immaturity and pointlessness of someone the film tells us needs to get over his immaturity and pointlessness.



* Am I the only one who doesn't get why the Veruca Salt song ends more abruptly than the others?

to:

* Am I the only one who doesn't get why the Why does Veruca Salt Salt's song ends end more abruptly than the others?



** That said, am I the only one who doesn't get why it was sung more like a lamenting ballad than the others? Like we were actually supposed to feel sentimental or something?
* Am I the only one who wonders how exactly Willy's dad moved the COMPLETE house?
** {{Rule of Funny}} and {{Rule of Drama}}.
** Wilbur has access to the exact same "technology" that Willy does. Wilbur invented it so he could become a dentist from a horror movie.
** Wilbur combined the dark magic of Saruman with Count Dooku's mastery of the Dark Side to accomplish such a feat.
** [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_relocation Structure relocation]]. Either they took the house apart, moved it into the factory and rebuilt it or they literally picked it up, put it on the back of a truck, and drove it there. Either's possible since the Bucket house is not one that would require a lot of drastic construction work to move; it's basically a large shack.



** She was practically RAPED by squirrels.
*** Not raped; roughly manhandled. And while that may be traumatic, it can't be worse than being stretched out in a taffy pulling machine.



* I am I the only one who isn't confounded by the fact Wonka doesn't have a massive law suit on his hands after all that. I mean: almost being burned to death, shrunk, turned purple and almost killed by a chocolate river, someone MUST have raised something. In the other film they sign a contract that probably covers that. But it this film, there is no one who bats an eyelid at someone being creepily long and PURPLE.

to:

* I am I the only one who isn't confounded by the fact How does Wonka doesn't not have a massive law suit lawsuit on his hands after all that. the factory tour? I mean: almost being burned to death, shrunk, turned purple and almost killed by a chocolate river, someone MUST have raised something. In the other film they sign a contract that probably covers that. But it this film, there is no one who bats an eyelid at someone being creepily long and PURPLE.



* This has got to be addressed. Why did Mike Teevee in this one, go to the chocolate factory. He said himself he hated chocolate and he didn't really seem interested in the wonder and splendor of the factory. Yet he went as far as, hacking the factory to get the proper codes to find the golden ticket and there was no Slugworth in this movie to bribe him.
** 2005 Mike strikes me as proactive enough to not ''need'' a Slugworth to come to him. He probably thought he'd just take a look around and maybe get a few secrets he could sell. Either that, or the neener-neener privileges of visiting The Forbidden Factory outweighed his dislike of chocolate (speaking of which, did he say he hated ''all'' sweets, or just chocolate? Wonka makes a lot of other stuff in there besides chocolate, which may include the soft drinks that gamers today love so much).
*** He only said he hate chocolate.....So maybe he is still interesting in other candys ,or he is just want to be "a samrtass that can beat any systems".
* If Wilbur Wonka [[SugarWiki/HeartwarmingMoments has an entire wall covered with photos and newspaper clippings detailing his son's accomplishments as a chocolatier]], how did he not recognize Willy when he and Charlie showed up on his doorstep? Even if a lot of his photos were outdated since Willy hasn't been out in public in several years, his appearance shouldn't have changed much in that time

to:

* This has got to be addressed. Why did Mike Teevee in this one, go to the chocolate factory. factory in this version? He said himself he hated chocolate and he didn't really seem interested in the wonder and splendor of the factory. Yet he went as far as, as hacking the factory to get the proper codes to find the golden ticket and there was no Slugworth in this movie to bribe him.
** 2005 Mike strikes me as proactive enough to not ''need'' a Slugworth to come to him. He probably thought he'd just take a look around and maybe get a few secrets he could sell. Either that, or the neener-neener privileges of visiting The Forbidden Factory outweighed his dislike of chocolate (speaking chocolate...Speaking of which, did he say he hated ''all'' sweets, or just chocolate? Wonka makes a lot of other stuff in there besides chocolate, which may include the soft drinks that gamers today love so much).
much?
*** He only said he hate chocolate.....So maybe he is still interesting in other candys ,or he is just want to be "a samrtass that can beat any systems".
hated chocolate.
* If Wilbur Wonka [[SugarWiki/HeartwarmingMoments has an entire wall covered with photos and newspaper clippings detailing his son's accomplishments as a chocolatier]], chocolatier, how did he not recognize Willy when he and Charlie showed up on his doorstep? Even if a lot of his photos were outdated since Willy hasn't been out in public in several years, his appearance shouldn't have changed much in that time



** He probably want to announce that he will took Charlie away from his family.....in person , right in front the face of the whole family , considering it as a "in your face" moment. But it go back fire on himself.
* Who were those guys putting up the golden ticket posters, anyway? From what can be seen of their features (granted, only for a few seconds), they aren't Oompa-Loompas.

to:

** Considering how short-sighted and immature Wonka is demonstrated as being elsewhere in the film, I wouldn't put it past him to not have considered the ramifications of destroying the roof of his house. He probably want to announce also might've assumed that he will took Charlie away from was more well off than he turned out to be, and thought that such property damage wouldn't be such a big deal to his family.....in person , right in front the face of the whole family , considering it family. Being such a famous chocolatier, it's not as a "in your face" moment. But it go back fire on himself.
if he'd know what it's like to be so destitute.
* Who were those guys putting up the golden ticket posters, anyway? From what can be seen of their features (granted, only for a few seconds), they aren't don't appear to be Oompa-Loompas.



* Applies to both films, really, with a bit of NewMediaAreEvil thrown in for good measure. Think about it: the Oompa Loompas are singing a morality song about TV rotting your brain... ''in a movie''. Slightly excusable in that they're kind of saying it's an '''excess''' of TV that's bad, but it's still a little "Huh?".
** It gets even funnier when the movie is being aired on TV. (The song in the book pretty much says any TV is bad, period.)
** Making chocolate bars smaller. Pointed out in a ''Series/SaturdayNightLive'' [[CharlieAndTheChocolateParody parody]] with Al Gore:
-->'''Glen Wonka (Al Gore) to his brother Willy:''' Wait! I almost forgot! There's that billion dollars you spent on that machine that turns giant candy bars into tiny chocolate bars. Help me wrap my brain around that one 'cause I'm missing the big profit opportunity!
*** Hang on, he's got a machine that can miniaturise ANYTHING, even living things. It would have innumerable applications in electronics, where years of research has been put into making smaller components. And that doesn't include the fact that he's invented a way to teleport any matter to a network of pre-existing recievers (all the TV sets in the world). Kind of useful...
** It's actually pointed out in the second movie when they shut down the room once the scene ends, implying that the whole thing served no purpose than to get that brat to shrink himself.
** The point was presumably to turn giant candy bars into ''millions'' of candy bars across the country, which would introduce the FridgeLogic of ReedRichardsIsUseless.
*** Thoroughly explained in the book as Willy Wonka trying to reach a new market. Back when Dahl first wrote the book, television for the general public was still a fairly new concept. It's ridiculous, yes, but then so are the Square Sweets That Look Round - Willy Wonka clearly has money to burn on ridiculous concepts like making giant candy bars and shrinking them down one at a time via an awkward giant camera setup.
** Chocolate doesn't have to make sense.
*** That's why it's chocolate.



* Charlie Bucket only found the fifth Golden Ticket on Jan 31, the night before the event. Which means no media circus, and no time for the Oompa-Loompas to rehearse a jaunty little death-and-dismemberment song for Charlie. Maybe that's the "real" reason he was the last child standing.



** Aren't there laws and health codes and such that keep you from just selling food all willy-nilly to people? Plus, why would anyone want to buy chocolate from one specific family in one specific part of the world when they can just go down the street to the store and get some?
** No one says that the Buckets would corner the entire market on selling Wonka chocolate; just that if they were receiving a lifetime's supply of free chocolate, selling some of it would probably bring in some change at least.
** Maybe, but that would take more work than just selling the ticket and would likely lead to a smaller windfall -- Charlie reasons that if a someone was willing to pay $500 on the spot, then there has to be someone else he would offer more. That's a lot more considerable than selling candies sparingly to make a little change on the side.
** A smaller windfall, perhaps, but a more consistent one. A lifetime supply of chocolate keeps coming and can be sold to provide a reasonably steady income that can be saved up cover an ongoing cost. A one-off payment, no matter how large, disappears as soon as you spend it, and then you're left with no money coming in whatsoever (i.e. back at square one). As for more work, no more than, say, setting up a small shop would be. They've already got an initial supply route arranged. In any case, it's academic since if Charlie just sells the ticket, there's no story, ergo Charlie isn't gonna sell the ticket anyway.
** Again, at this point, they aren’t concerned about the size or consistency of the windfall. Charlie’s father already lost his job, it’s the middle of winter, and they’re only getting hungrier and hungrier. They need money now. And for all they know, the lifetime supply of chocolate could come with some sort of “no resales” clause to keep the kids from competing with Wonka. And even if it didn’t, obtaining a business license and building a premises in which to sell the chocolate both cost more money than the Buckets presumably have on them at this point.
** "They need money now" -- and either way will get them money (assuming the lack of a "no resale clause", granted, but since it's unspecified either way it's just as reasonable to assume the lack of such a clause as its presence), so might as well go with the way which will provide an ongoing income. They also don't necessarily need a brick and mortar shop, at least initially -- set up a stall on the street or in a public space. Though that said, if food is the main issue or our main objection to why they went on the tour instead of selling the ticket, then both of us have been overlooking the most compelling argument in favour of keeping the ticket, which is that if they're in dire need of food then that's all the more reason to go on the tour, which will end with them getting access to '''''a lifetime's supply of food'''''. Not the healthiest of food, granted, but it's something they can eat, which is better than nothing, and will taste a damn sight better than cabbage soup every morning, noon and night.
** "Since it's unspecified either way it's just as reasonable to assume the lack of such a clause as its presence" -- apologies, but ''no'', it's not reasonable to assume that. Wonka went so far as to close down his factory in order to protect himself from industrial espionage, so him letting the children and their families make a fortune by reselling the candy he gives to them, potentially to his own competitors, would make no sense. And if the Buckets can't sell the chocolate, that would mean that they gave up the opportunity to make a monetary fortune off the ticket in exchange for a surplus of crazy-unhealthy food that, at most, ''tastes better'' than what they were eating before. (I'm not sure why you're still arguing this, to be honest, because the course of action you're suggesting is the one the characters in the movie choose to go with anyway -- it's only the ultra-precocious Charlie who brings up the possibility of selling the ticket for money, and that's primarily so that his family can teach him the lesson that there's more to life than money.)
** It would only be "industrial espionage" in the same way that his competitors buying the candy that Wonka releases from the nearest store that stocks Wonka products would be; Wonka is almost certainly giving the gold ticket winners the same finished products that end up in the stores, not the in-progress prototype like the Everlasting Gobstopper or the secrets for how he makes his products. And if that's the case, that's no reason to disallow the victor from selling or passing the actual candy they win on further (the secrets they ''observed'' in the factory itself, I'm guessing, is a another matter -- but then, that one's a fundamental risk Wonka is taking by opening his factory up again to begin with). That said, the "reselling chocolate you got for free" aspect is a bit more of a sticking point, granted, but (and this is getting into the weeds, I grant you) it is possible that the Buckets could have come to some kind of arrangement with Mr. Wonka.
** As for why I am continuing this despite it going against what happens in the story, presumably a similar reason for why you felt the need post the original headscratcher in the first place and why you feel the need to continue to respond to my responses; you are sufficiently interested, have enough free time, and are sufficiently unconvinced by my (counter-)reasoning to feel it worth continuing to debate the point. So frankly, your little section in parentheses there comes off as rather unnecessarily snide and dismissive. In arguing over a minor point of logic in a children's story, arguably neither of us are using our time most productively on this page, to be brutally honest, but I respect that you have a right to continue to do so if so you wish.
** Also “a surplus of crazy-unhealthy food that, at most, ''tastes better'' than what they were eating before”; is it really ''that'' ridiculous and unbelievable to you that a family who had been existing almost entirely on cabbages might not turn down the chance to get a free food source that tasted much, much nicer than cabbages?
** In addition, let's assume that there is no clause preventing them from selling the candy they get from the tour. You can't support a family of seven people who are starving in a rundown house on what amounts to a lemonade stand. And there's the fact that people all across the globe have been buying Wonka bars up the wazoo, owing to the Golden Ticket craze. The demand for more of those things is going to be at an all-time low. So you're still arguing that the Buckets should give up the chance to make a fortune off selling a ticket that expires ''the very next day'' so that they can ~maybe~ make a few dollars in change from selling the stuff they get from the ticket.
** Fair enough on this one; in fairness, I never argued that doing so would make them millionaires overnight. But a lemonade stand could be a stepping stone to a larger and more successful business if sufficiently developed, and while demand will decline, people won't completely go off chocolate; demand would return to normal within time. I'm simply arguing the "teach a man to fish" side rather than "give a man a fish".
** I understand where you’re coming from, but Headscratchers are really supposed to be about questions, not arguments. Characters in media sometimes make wrong choices or disregard sensible options in order to service the plot or so that they can learn a lesson. The point is, they can’t always be expected to act completely rationally, and that’s why you really shouldn’t pose a question here if you’re going to keep arguing instead of accepting an answer, suspending your disbelief, and moving on.
** FWIW I’m not the OP, but with sincerely no disrespect intended you might also want to take your own advice there. All I’ve done is suggest reasons why keeping the ticket and (if possible) selling the chocolate afterwards can also make sense. From where I’m sitting, it seems to be you who’s been determined to prove someone else “wrong” and keep an argument going rather than accepting a possible answer that’s been provided to you (along with maybe a drop of willing suspension of disbelief as needed). Characters can indeed make “wrong” choices in service of the plot, and that in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but all I’ve suggested is that there are possible reasons why this choice isn’t necessarily a wrong one. Headscratchers is also about answering those questions, after all.

to:

** Aren't there laws and health codes and such that keep you from just selling food all willy-nilly to people? Plus, why would anyone want to buy chocolate from one specific family in one specific part of the world when they can just go down the street to the store and get some?
** No one says that
And for all the Buckets would corner the entire market on selling Wonka chocolate; just that if they were receiving a lifetime's supply of free chocolate, selling some of it would probably bring in some change at least.
** Maybe, but that would take more work than just selling the ticket and would likely lead to a smaller windfall -- Charlie reasons that if a someone was willing to pay $500 on the spot, then there has to be someone else he would offer more. That's a lot more considerable than selling candies sparingly to make a little change on the side.
** A smaller windfall, perhaps, but a more consistent one. A lifetime supply of chocolate keeps coming and can be sold to provide a reasonably steady income that can be saved up cover an ongoing cost. A one-off payment, no matter how large, disappears as soon as you spend it, and then you're left with no money coming in whatsoever (i.e. back at square one). As for more work, no more than, say, setting up a small shop would be. They've already got an initial supply route arranged. In any case, it's academic since if Charlie just sells the ticket, there's no story, ergo Charlie isn't gonna sell the ticket anyway.
** Again, at this point, they aren’t concerned about the size or consistency of the windfall. Charlie’s father already lost his job, it’s the middle of winter, and they’re only getting hungrier and hungrier. They need money now. And for all they know,
knew, the lifetime supply of chocolate could come with some sort of “no resales” clause to keep the kids from competing with Wonka. And even if it didn’t, obtaining a business license and building a premises in which to sell the chocolate both cost more money than the Buckets presumably have on them at this point.
** "They need money now" -- and either way will get them money (assuming the lack of a "no resale clause", granted, but since it's unspecified either way it's just as reasonable to assume the lack of such a clause as its presence), so might as well go with the way which will provide an ongoing income. They also don't necessarily need a brick and mortar shop, at least initially -- set up a stall on the street or in a public space. Though that said, if food is the main issue or our main objection to why they went on the tour instead of selling the ticket, then both of us have been overlooking the most compelling argument in favour of keeping the ticket, which is that if they're in dire need of food then that's all the more reason to go on the tour, which will end with them getting access to '''''a lifetime's supply of food'''''. Not the healthiest of food, granted, but it's something they can eat, which is better than nothing, and will taste a damn sight better than cabbage soup every morning, noon and night.
** "Since it's unspecified either way it's just as reasonable to assume the lack of such a clause as its presence" -- apologies, but ''no'', it's not reasonable to assume that. Wonka went so far as to close down his factory in order to protect himself from industrial espionage, so him letting the children and their families make a fortune by reselling the candy he gives to them, potentially to his own competitors, would make no sense. And if the Buckets can't sell the chocolate, that would mean that they gave up the opportunity to make a monetary fortune off the ticket in exchange for a surplus of crazy-unhealthy food that, at most, ''tastes better'' than what they were eating before. (I'm not sure why you're still arguing this, to be honest, because the course of action you're suggesting is the one the characters in the movie choose to go with anyway -- it's only the ultra-precocious Charlie who brings up the possibility of selling the ticket for money, and that's primarily so that his family can teach him the lesson that there's more to life than money.)
** It would only be "industrial espionage" in the same way that his competitors buying the candy that Wonka releases from the nearest store that stocks Wonka products would be; Wonka is almost certainly giving the gold ticket winners the same finished products that end up in the stores, not the in-progress prototype like the Everlasting Gobstopper or the secrets for how he makes his products. And if that's the case, that's no reason to disallow the victor from selling or passing the actual candy they win on further (the secrets they ''observed'' in the factory itself, I'm guessing, is a another matter -- but then, that one's a fundamental risk Wonka is taking by opening his factory up again to begin with). That said, the "reselling chocolate you got for free" aspect is a bit more of a sticking point, granted, but (and this is getting into the weeds, I grant you) it is possible that the Buckets could have come to some kind of arrangement with Mr. Wonka.
** As for why I am continuing this despite it going against what happens in the story, presumably a similar reason for why you felt the need post the original headscratcher in the first place and why you feel the need to continue to respond to my responses; you are sufficiently interested, have enough free time, and are sufficiently unconvinced by my (counter-)reasoning to feel it worth continuing to debate the point. So frankly, your little section in parentheses there comes off as rather unnecessarily snide and dismissive. In arguing over a minor point of logic in a children's story, arguably neither of us are using our time most productively on this page, to be brutally honest, but I respect that you have a right to continue to do so if so you wish.
** Also “a surplus of crazy-unhealthy food that, at most, ''tastes better'' than what they were eating before”; is it really ''that'' ridiculous and unbelievable to you that a family who had been existing almost entirely on cabbages might not turn down the chance to get a free food source that tasted much, much nicer than cabbages?
** In addition, let's assume that there is no clause preventing them from selling the candy they get from the tour. You can't support a family of seven people who are starving in a rundown house on what amounts to a lemonade stand. And there's the fact that people all across the globe have been buying Wonka bars up the wazoo, owing to the Golden Ticket craze. The demand for more of those things is going to be at an all-time low. So you're still arguing that the Buckets should give up the chance to make a fortune off selling a ticket that expires ''the very next day'' so that they can ~maybe~ make a few dollars in change from selling the stuff they get from the ticket.
** Fair enough on this one; in fairness, I never argued that doing so would make them millionaires overnight. But a lemonade stand could be a stepping stone to a larger and more successful business if sufficiently developed, and while demand will decline, people won't completely go off chocolate; demand would return to normal within time. I'm simply arguing the "teach a man to fish" side rather than "give a man a fish".
** I understand where you’re coming from, but Headscratchers are really supposed to be about questions, not arguments. Characters in media sometimes make wrong choices or disregard sensible options in order to service the plot or so that they can learn a lesson. The point is, they can’t always be expected to act completely rationally, and that’s why you really shouldn’t pose a question here if you’re going to keep arguing instead of accepting an answer, suspending your disbelief, and moving on.
** FWIW I’m not the OP, but with sincerely no disrespect intended you might also want to take your own advice there. All I’ve done is suggest reasons why keeping the ticket and (if possible) selling the chocolate afterwards can also make sense. From where I’m sitting, it seems to be you who’s been determined to prove someone else “wrong” and keep an argument going rather than accepting a possible answer that’s been provided to you (along with maybe a drop of willing suspension of disbelief as needed). Characters can indeed make “wrong” choices in service of the plot, and that in and of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but all I’ve suggested is that there are possible reasons why this choice isn’t necessarily a wrong one. Headscratchers is also about answering those questions, after all.
point.



** When I watched both films, I got the impression that Wonka ''was'' planning to get into the TV manufacturing business. The TVs you can reach into and grab stuff from are the product he was testing in the Television Room, but the only stuff you can take from inside them are those transmitted via the teleporter inside Wonka's factory.

to:

** When I watched both films, I got the impression that Wonka ''was'' planning to get into the TV manufacturing business. The TVs [=TVs=] you can reach into and grab stuff from are the product he was testing in the Television Room, but the only stuff you can take from inside them are those transmitted via the teleporter inside Wonka's factory.



** He tasked him with going out and collecting candy so that he could lecture him personally about how unhealthy all of it is. Or, a nicer interpretation: he’s okay with his son dressing up in costume and spending the night having fun with his friends, and just doesn’t want him eating the unhealthy candy he gets from it. There’s nothing to indicate Wilbur wasn’t a reasonable father when it came to matters that didn’t concern eating candy, so he wouldn’t be adverse to Willy partaking in some harmless holiday festivities.
** Maybe it's little Willy's first trick or treating , and maybe as a reasonable parent(and a dentist) , Wilbur just don't want Willy to eat those candies with THAT braces installed.(Cleaning those thing can be a pain...Especially with tons of sweet stuck in it.)

to:

** He tasked him with going out and collecting candy so that he could lecture him personally about how unhealthy all of it is. Or, a nicer interpretation: Or he’s still a reasonable parent who is okay with his son dressing up in costume and spending the night having fun with his friends, and but just doesn’t doesn't want him eating the unhealthy candy he gets from it. There’s nothing to indicate Wilbur wasn’t a reasonable father when it came to matters that didn’t concern eating candy, so he wouldn’t be adverse to Willy partaking in some harmless holiday festivities.
** Maybe it's little Willy's first trick or treating , and maybe as a reasonable parent(and a dentist) , Wilbur just don't want Willy to eat those candies with THAT braces installed.(Cleaning those thing can be a pain...Especially with tons of sweet stuck in it.)
brings home afterwards.



** His warning was meant to be taken as “This palace won’t last long, so I’d recommend you eat what you can before it all melts away,” not “If you start eating now, I believe you can definitely finish eating this entire palace before it melts away.” Even if we look beyond that, it’s not as if Wonka would really care what the prince does with the palace. He presumably got paid to come out and build it, so his compensation for doing so is the only thing he’s going to concern himself with.
* Why does Augustus appear to live ''inside'' of his father's butcher shop? I mean, he's interviewed in it, and he was eating his winning Wonka bar inside of it. Most stores (food stores especially) don't allow outside food! Plus, Augustus seems to be alone in the dark when he finds the ticket. Are the Gloops really that poor? Where do they sleep, behind the counters? Do they live on solely meat? (Well, that IS actaully plausible, considering how fat Augustus is.) The Gloops deserved redemption just as much as the Buckets in that case!
** Just because the interview took place inside the shop doesn't in any way mean that the Gloops live there. You seem to be overthinking this a bit. There are many reasons why they would want the interview to happen there rather than their place of residence. We can presume based on his mother's appearance that the family isn't all that poor, and even if they were, that doesn't automatically make them more deserving of redemption.
*** But he was eating his winning Wonka bar inside of it. Most stores (food stores especially) don't allow outside food! Plus, Augustus seems to be alone in the dark when he finds the ticket.
*** First at all, Augustus IS the son of the shop owner , so "No outside food" (probably) don't apply to him. Secondly , I don't know about Germany , but in Asia , it's normal for the family of shop owner to live IN the shop (building)....mostly the backroom(s) or upstairs.(which don't necessary to be shown in the interview.) And for Third , a normal local butcher shop would have it's day off of the week/month (or just a midday lunch break) , at which the store is closed , and Augustus Could be "just like to eat his chocolate with the A/C in shop")

to:

** His warning was meant to be taken as “This palace won’t last long, so I’d recommend you eat what you can before it all melts away,” not “If you start eating now, I believe you can definitely finish eating this entire palace before it melts away.” Even if we look beyond that, it’s it's not as if Wonka would really care up to Wonka what the prince does with the palace. He presumably got paid to come out and build it, so his compensation for doing so is the only thing he’s going to concern himself with.
* Why does Augustus appear to live ''inside'' of his father's butcher shop? I mean, he's interviewed in it, and
palace, whether he eats it all up or lets it melt away into nothing. He was eating his winning Wonka bar inside of it. Most stores (food stores especially) don't allow outside food! Plus, Augustus seems to be alone in the dark when he finds the ticket. Are the Gloops really that poor? Where do they sleep, behind the counters? Do they live on solely meat? (Well, that IS actaully plausible, considering how fat Augustus is.) The Gloops deserved redemption just as much as the Buckets in that case!
** Just because the interview took place inside the shop doesn't in any way mean that the Gloops live there. You seem to be overthinking this
giving him a bit. There are many reasons why they would want the interview to happen there rather than their place warning out of residence. We can presume based on his mother's appearance that the family isn't all that poor, and even if they were, that doesn't automatically make them more deserving of redemption.
*** But he was eating his winning Wonka bar inside of it. Most stores (food stores especially) don't allow outside food! Plus, Augustus seems to be alone in the dark when he finds the ticket.
*** First at all, Augustus IS the son of the shop owner , so "No outside food" (probably) don't apply to him. Secondly , I don't know about Germany , but in Asia , it's normal for the family of shop owner to live IN the shop (building)....mostly the backroom(s) or upstairs.(which don't necessary to be shown in the interview.) And for Third , a normal local butcher shop would have it's day off of the week/month (or just a midday lunch break) , at which the store is closed , and Augustus Could be "just like to eat his chocolate with the A/C in shop")
human decency.



* When Mike send himself through television, why the Oompa Loompas didn't push the button again to cancel the teleportation? Wonka warned Mike to not push the button as it activated the machine and he did it, but there was enough time for the Oompa-Loompas to push it again and cancel the command. Why they didn't push it if they knew that Mike would be shrunken upon arriving to the television or in the worst of cases lacking a half?
* When Willy Wonka finishs building the chocolate palace for the prince, he warns him that it will not last long and that he should start eating it right now, a warning the prince dismisses and eventually pays for when the palace melts. But how did Wonka manage to build it in the first place without the palace melting? It's shown that during the building process, there were many suny evenings but the palace didn't melt. The palace should have possibly melt long before it could be finished...

to:

* When Mike attempts to send himself through television, why didn't the Oompa Loompas didn't nearby push the button again to cancel the teleportation? Wonka warned Mike to not push teleportation?
** How do we know
the button as works that way? Maybe pressing it activated the machine and he did it, but there was enough a second time for the Oompa-Loompas to push it again and cancel the command. Why they didn't push it if they knew that Mike would be shrunken upon arriving to the television or in the worst of cases lacking a half?
wouldn't have done anything.
* When Willy Wonka finishs building the chocolate palace for the prince, he warns him that it will not last long and that he should start eating it right now, a warning the prince dismisses and eventually pays for when the palace melts. But how How did Wonka manage to build it in the first place without the palace melting? It's shown for the Indian prince without it melting away before it was even finished?
** According to sources, the melting point of chocolate is between 86 and 90 degrees Fahrenheit. There are parts of the year in India with average temperatures well below
that during the building process, there were many suny evenings but threshold. Wonka probably just arranged to have the palace didn't melt. The palace should have possibly melt long before constructed at a time of year when it could be finished...would withstand the local temperature.

Added DiffLines:

** Given that the tour itself was just a front for Wonka's search for an heir, and Augustus had proven himself to be a highly unpleasant and greedy little twit, I'd be more than willing to assume that he didn't get to rejoin because 1. Augustus was now out of the running to inherit the factory and 2. Wonka seems the type to be more than happy to revoke the "prize" of visiting the factory now that Augustus essentially messed it up for himself by not listening. Sort of like a parent confiscating a new toy from a child who is misbehaving with it.


** I think it's because Wonka's competitors aren't stealing anything from him that can be legally protected. There is no way to obtain a patent or copyright protection for an ''idea'', like "ice cream that never melts" or "super-inflatey candy balloons" or "gum that never loses its flavor". He can't prove that their imitations of his products are anything more than that, in the same way that PepsiCo and the Coca Cola Company can't sue each other over both selling their own versions of lemon-lime soda. (Sierra Mist and Sprite, respectively.)

to:

** I think it's because Wonka's competitors aren't stealing anything from him that can be legally protected. There is no way to obtain a patent or copyright protection for an ''idea'', like "ice cream that never melts" or "super-inflatey "super-inflatable candy balloons" or "gum that never loses its flavor". He can't prove that their imitations of his products are anything more than that, in the same way that PepsiCo [=PepsiCo=] and the Coca Cola Company can't sue each other over both selling their own versions of lemon-lime soda. (Sierra Mist and Sprite, respectively.)soda.


** I think it's because Wonka's competitors aren't stealing anything from him that can be legally protected. There is no way to obtain a patent or copyright protection for an ''idea'', like "ice cream that never melts" or "super-inflatey candy balloons" or "gum that never loses its flavor". He can't prove that their imitations of his products are anything more than that, in the same way that PepsiCo and the Coca Cola Company can't sue each other over both selling their own versions of lemon-lime soda. (Sierra Mist and Sprite, respectively.)



* When Willy Wonka finished to build the chocolate palace for the prince, he warns him that it will not last for long and he should start eating it right now, a warning the prince dismisses and thus he pays for it when the palace melts. But how Wonka managed to build it in the first place without the palace melting? It's shown that during the building process, there were many suny evenings but the palace didn't melt. The palace should have possibly melt long before it could be finished...

to:

* When Willy Wonka finished to build finishs building the chocolate palace for the prince, he warns him that it will not last for long and that he should start eating it right now, a warning the prince dismisses and thus he eventually pays for it when the palace melts. But how did Wonka managed manage to build it in the first place without the palace melting? It's shown that during the building process, there were many suny evenings but the palace didn't melt. The palace should have possibly melt long before it could be finished...

Added DiffLines:

* When Fickelgruber, Prodnose and Slugworth stole some of Wonka's recipes through their spies, why instead of closing down the factory, Wonka just didn't fil a lawsuit against them? It's really seems obvious that they copied him, if only Wonka was known for producing that specific sweets, like the "un-melting" ice cream.


Added DiffLines:

* When Willy Wonka finished to build the chocolate palace for the prince, he warns him that it will not last for long and he should start eating it right now, a warning the prince dismisses and thus he pays for it when the palace melts. But how Wonka managed to build it in the first place without the palace melting? It's shown that during the building process, there were many suny evenings but the palace didn't melt. The palace should have possibly melt long before it could be finished...


* If Willy Wonka's father doesn't want him to eat candy, why does he let him go trick or treating in the first place?

Added DiffLines:

** I've sometimes wondered the same thing. It surely would have made more sense to wait until all five tickets had been found before announcing the date. It's also lucky that Charlie happens to live right on the doorstep of the factory; what if he'd had to fly in from the other side of the world? He wouldn't even have had time to make the arrangements. But Wonka might have just expected that all the tickets would have been found by that date at the rate they were being bought, and with his wealth and influence would probably have had the means to get the makers of any last-minute discoveries there on time.

Added DiffLines:

** My theory is that they will diss track the child for being clumsy.

Added DiffLines:

**** First at all, Augustus IS the son of the shop owner , so "No outside food" (probably) don't apply to him. Secondly , I don't know about Germany , but in Asia , it's normal for the family of shop owner to live IN the shop (building)....mostly the backroom(s) or upstairs.(which don't necessary to be shown in the interview.) And for Third , a normal local butcher shop would have it's day off of the week/month (or just a midday lunch break) , at which the store is closed , and Augustus Could be "just like to eat his chocolate with the A/C in shop")

Added DiffLines:

** Maybe it's little Willy's first trick or treating , and maybe as a reasonable parent(and a dentist) , Wilbur just don't want Willy to eat those candies with THAT braces installed.(Cleaning those thing can be a pain...Especially with tons of sweet stuck in it.)

Added DiffLines:

*** He only said he hate chocolate.....So maybe he is still interesting in other candys ,or he is just want to be "a samrtass that can beat any systems".


Added DiffLines:

** He probably want to announce that he will took Charlie away from his family.....in person , right in front the face of the whole family , considering it as a "in your face" moment. But it go back fire on himself.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 322

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report